that is tomorrows "washington journal." we want to thank everyone who participated in watched today and we will check back in with you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> see the present debate monday night on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. watch and engaged. next a forum on relations between the u.s., russia and syria. a pal discuss the syrian support of the -- a panel discusses russian support of the syrian civil war. this is about an hour and a half.

>> we welcome all of you joining us on heritage foundation and on c-span. we ask that you turn off yourself funds as we begin recording for the benefit of today's program. the we will post for everyone's future reference. hosting our discussion today is dr. steven bucci. his focus is special operations and cyber security. he commanded the third battalion fifth special forces and also became the military assistant to donald rumsfeld. at his retirement, -- prior to joining us, he was a leading consultant on cyber security. please welcome the in -- join me in welcoming steven bucci.

[applause] >> we have a very timely subjects to discuss, and i think we have a great panel of experts that will be doing be discussing to get us started. i have been interested in this because one of the first things i did was testified before congress about the weapons of mass destruction threat that syria and the somewhat untimely demise might pose. i am interested to hear the answer to one of the questions i was asked. i want to tell you -- won't tell you, but we will hear what the experts have to say. we will have a minute or two for a short wrap up. those of you that have not been the panels have moderated before, if you get past the second piece of the english language and i don't hear a

question mark, i will stop you. this is not the time to give speeches. we will make sure that we get as many questions asked and answered as possible. keep your questions to say, get

to the question park, and we will let the experts address them. i will do all the introductions and we will go down the line. the speakers are sitting in the order that they will present. we will start with dr. phillips who is the senior research fellow for the heritage foundation. he has written extensively about the middle east and international terrorism since 1978. gm has been interviewed frequently on numerous media outlets. he is an extremely knowledgeable and. -- man. he will be followed by dr. friedman, the professor of

political science at baltimore hebrew university. the department of state and the cia, our third speaker will be dr. steven blank. the strategic studies institute expert on soviet bloc and post- soviet world since 1989. he is the editor of the imperial decline, russia's changing position in asia and the co-editor of soviet military and the future. the last speaker, my colleague that heritage is the senior

research fellow for russia and eurasian studies. they have often been called to testify on economics and law. they have numerous media outlets both domestically and across the globe. we will start with jim phillips. >> i would like to set the stage for the next three speakers that will focus primarily on russian policy by outlining u.s. policy and how it is factored into the blood packs that we see in syria today with more than 30,000 dead and no end in sight. i think it is fair to say the obama administration was behind the curve of the following the events in syria. i'd say this was because of

ideological baggage. it led the wishful thinking about these opposing benefits of engaging in the regime. i think it was a horrible mess reading of that nature of the assad regime. the possibility of negotiating a diplomatic transition to a new government, i think it was due to an insistence on multilateralism, it hamstrung u.s. policy in question decision making to the united nations, which was paralyzed by lack of consensus and the threat of a russian and chinese veto. the obama administration was determined to improve relations with the regime and initially

soft color -- soft-pedaled criticism of the regime including violent crackdowns on its own people. the longstanding support of terrorism, second only to iran. the implacable hostility to israel, at the close alliance with iran and russia. syria supported groups killing u.s. troops in iraq and the supporting the lebanese terrorist organization responsible for the death of lebanon on ha. i go back to lebanon on because i think it is worth noting that the marines initially had been deployed to separate israel following the 1982 lebanon on a war. fast forward to 2005, and there

was the assassination of another lebanese leader. this time, the former prime minister that courageously stood up to syria and domination inside lebanon on. that led the bush administration to withdraw the u.s. ambassador to syria because they had once again been implicated in the assassination of a lebanese leader. despite the bloody track record, the administration sought to improve relations with

damascus and use senator john kerry as an intermediary. it reversed the bush and administration's attempt to mobilize international pressure against the regime and it reversed the decision to withdraw the u.s. ambassador. when the democratic controlled senate balked, named robert ford has -- in december of 2010. unfortunately, sending an ambassador back to damascus have not modified its hostile policies, they sent a message that washington was eager to restore relations despite syria's continued role as a spoiler and the middle east. this also hinted that there would be little price to be paid for future hostile act. one of the principal motivations for the glossing over of the longstanding enmity was the hope to draw up the mess that -- in damascus and the peace negotiations with israel.

this has been a pattern followed by other administrations with the comprehensive arab-israeli peace. other administrations have pursued that. that has softened u.s. policy, warren christopher to damascus more than 20 times, which was more than he went to moscow or beijing. these and other efforts to broker peace failed because damascus was interested in participating in a peace process, but not in actually assigning a peace treaty. they were interested in the process because it would diffuse international pressure going back to the '90s what that lost its soviet ally. it would allow them to reap the benefits of participating in a process without paying the costs of signing a peace treaty with israel which would jeopardize its claim to leadership of the arab world, the resistance access.

they were adamantly opposed to peace with israel. in any case, the obama administration's engagement policy failed in syria just as it has failed in iran. in both cases, wishful thinking about drawing a hostile regime into a diplomatic settlement of outstanding issues proved to be unfounded and yielded few tangible results. but in the eagerness to a negotiated deal, the administration pulled its punches and initially muted its criticism of the bloody repression.

if we saw this in iran in june of 2009. via administration cut days, if not weeks, to toughen the rhetoric on the suppression of the grain movement. or when peaceful protest erupted in march of 2011, the regime responded with a group force including the indiscriminate shelling of artillery and tanks and air strikes. he the administration continued to treat the regime with kid gloves. hillary clinton described him as a reformer in a march 27 statement. this was an embarrassing misreading of the situation in syria. although he had promised to promote reform following the death of his father, he has done

precious little to deliver on those promises. in july of 2011, they showed contempt for u.s. policy by orchestrating the attack on the u.s. embassy in damascus. stepping down in august of 2011. russia could easily blocked effective action. no outside force is capable of imposing peace in syria as long as the power struggle, a struggle to the death continues to intensify between the regime and the many opposition groups that spawn. the increasingly bloody conflict, they do little to slow the killing machine this diplomatic trade benefits to them by buying time to crush the rebellion and benefited russia and iran by helping them selvage a brutal middle east ally.

it does nothing to advance u.s. national interests and by ridding the middle east of a major regime that the state sponsors of terrorism. the often amounts to little more than an empty euphemism on many critical issues. russia, china, and iran continue to support via sought dictatorship. they have sent arms, the plight revolutionary guards, advising and assisting the security forces in repressing them a.

in repressing the iran's green movement home in 2009, although i think we have not heard the last of the grain movement. the bottom line is that the obama administration must abandon wishful thinking about the nature of that regime, the effectiveness of the united nations and the supposed benefits with russia. if this is to successfully

address was going on inside syria. the timid syria policy is especially grating when compared to its policy on egypt. there, the administration pressed for mubarak to resign in a matter of weeks despite the fact it was a longtime ally. it took five months to issue similar calls for the resignation of assad. the country gained a reputation for quickly abandoning its friends while courting its enemies. i think we will find it has more enemies and less friends. this is likely to be one of the lasting legacies of the obama administration in the middle east. >> i want to thank the heritage foundation, and especially for inviting me here.

it is a pleasure to be here. i have only 12 minutes, as i was promised, and i have a lot to cover. why will speak quickly and if there are questions afterward, please pick them up. a historical look at both soviet and russian relations which go back to 1946. look at putin's policies before the arab spring. look at russia's concern with the arab spring. the most important to look at considerations in dealing with syria during the crisis. leo of the cost to russia on the syrian policy which i believe is quite large. try to explain why russia perseveres and seems to be a counterproductive policy.

this goes back a long way. it becomes the soviet diplomatic agency. leading up to soviet support in 1948. a series of cruise and damascus, it is soviet arms ha. the egyptians at the time and did those fears. however, when they broke up in 1961, it quoted damascus. the russia-syria relationship goes back a long way. syria became independent from france, scout established an embassy in damascus and became a major center of soviet diplomatic activity and was the center. for negotiation between the zionist movement and the soviet union leading up to the soviet support of the establishment of

the state of israel in 1948. following the death of stalin and a series of coups in domestic, syria became a purchaser of soviet arms and at the time, some fear that syria was going communist. the united arab republic defeated those fears but it was called -- called a leader a heady and men for doing it. when it broke up in 1961, moscow courted damascus and a following the left-wing coup, relationships became quite close and you will recall the soviet efforts to preserve the narrowly-based assets pterygium called for an end to the war. relations grew closer in 1970. syria granted russia enabled installation, supply and maintenance facility, and two countries signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation. by 1974, as egypt began to move into the u.s. orbit, syria emerged as the no. 1 ally.

not to say there are no problems between the two sides. the syrian intervention in lebanon clearly displeased moscow as did its agreement to security council to hundred 42. it's one of the few states that supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan in 1979 and was richly rewarded with military aid as a result. that continued until the advent of gorbachev in 1985 to turn off the tap of military aid. the chill in the relationship continued until 2005 when a combination of increasing syrian isolation due to policies in lebanon and a much more aggressive russian foreign policy under vladimir putin established a close russian- syrian relationship we see today. let's look at the policies of vladimir putin in his second

term. i see is reacting to be setbacks like the school fiasco, the orange revolution in the ukraine, and the increasing vulnerability of the u.s. in the middle east because of the invasion of iraq which -- and because of the revival in the taliban in afghanistan, vladimir putin went on the offensive. first, he tried to improve relations with iran, syria, and turkey. in the case of syria, the soviet era debt was forgiven and vladimir putin authorize new weapons sale. syria was one of the few states in the world to support the russian invasion in 2008. the second step occurred in 2007. the u.s. was still in disarray in the middle east, trying to disband the rogue states to cultivate the remaining states. in 2008, at of libya to moscow's expanding activity. vladimir putin hospitals were for full -- to demonstrate it was a major power in the middle east and the world. no. 2, the investment for industrial projects while selling nuclear reactors and railway systems.

number three, as the cost and difficulty of extracting natural gas with countries like saudi aria, libya and iraq. -- saudi arabia, libya and iraq. and to prevent -- keeping the ties with the sunni alignment of the gulf states and the shiite groups of iran and hezbollah was not easy as tensions rose between the two groups. this was increasingly clear with the onset of the arab spring. when you look at russian concerns, it could spread to russia which suffered some of the same problems as the arab states. widespread corruption and rising prices and some of the -- [indiscernible] next stop moscow. and further inspire the islamists. no. 3, investments and a lease

could be jeopardized as well as business and arms sales deals. no. 4, when libya occurred, the russians took a major lesson. they abstained from the security council vote over the no-fly zone in libya. therefore continuing the white in russian policy. as the russians say, it was going quite badly as the no-fly zone became a case for regime change and russia lost almost $4 billion in arms sales and several billion dollars in industrial contracts. here we come to the main point. why are the russians doing what they're doing?

number one -- no repeated experience -- we will not permit regime change. number two, syria remained an important country in the middle east with ties to hezbollah and much less now to's. the russians don't want to alienate iran, syria's main ally, which is already ancient -- already angry because of the 2002 sanctions. number three, it's a major market for russian arms. number four, the naval facility at targets -- while it is mostly floating docks and warehouses, the only facility open to russia in the middle east of important symbolic value. russian ships visited showing the flag. russia has an economic investment in syria totaling almost $20 billion. number six, and this is the. my colleague is going to talk about -- anti-americanism. syria is a major anti-american force in the middle east and vladimir putin will not let this be overthrown. no. 7 -- islam.

if islamists takeover in syria, it will have a negative effect on russian's -- russia's muslim population. when ambassadors were attacked and ambassador stevens were killed, the combat -- the russians said we told you this would happen if you back the rebels -- if you back the revolutions. with streets demonstrations in the midst of the presidential campaign in russia, vladimir putin saw the same forces at work in russia as in syria and the u.s. is trying to do and warned revolution in russia. efficient -- russia in summing up, has vetoed three resolutions, including water down once to syria, continues to ship arms to syria, saying there's no security resolution against arms shipments. it is urging them to open up a

dialogue with the regime and supported the ill-fated kofi anan mission is to prolong the life of the regime. moscow has been wooing these states since 2007, especially saudi arabia. number two, alienating key islamic leaders who called for boycotting of products from russia and said several days ago "russian jets are bombing the syrian people. the arab and islamic world must and against russia, boy, russia and consider rush-hour number one enemy." #3, it angers and alienates the united states. and increasingly irritates turkey. why is russia doing this? there is continued disunity in the ranks of the rebels, although after this morning, there's another chance they say to reunify. hopefully, scout, think they

won't be able to oust assad. turkey has not been willing to extend their anti-syrian rhetoric. however, the turkish prime minister is quite had strong. if he continues to be provoked by syrian shelling, he may take action. this is why in recent days, following the shelling, forcing down a jet flying to damascus, russia is trying to ply the situation and by increasing the supply of natural gas to turkey, making up for a short fly to iran to maintain good relations between russia and turkey despite what is happening in syria. in conclusion, moscow is taking a major middle east gamble with its policy in syria. if the gamble fails, and i think it will, hopefully if the u.s. get a little more active in the process, moscow's middle east policy will be in deep trouble. thank you. >> thank you very much. steve? >> thank you very much.

i want to thank everyone and the heritage foundation for inviting me. a pleasure to be back with some old friends. i have to say my remarks to not reflect the views of the army, the defense department or the u.s. government. i'm going to talk about russian motives, building on what bob just said. i think there are some points that can be added to that discussion. the motives i see operating to draw and russian foreign policy are simultaneously implicated in the policy. you can't just pull out one string and say that is the decisive factor in the policy making process. what we can say and we have observed in the last several years, not just syria, we see an increasing, narrowing policy

process in russia. fewer and fewer people are refusing to make policy in general. vladimir putin rarely listens to a large circle of people. he gets his information from a very restricted circle of people. he is not a tech-savvy guy the way dimitry medvedev was. if you have had the misfortune of reading this question me as i do, he lives in what may be called an echo chamber of paranoid reflecting each other's paranoia and that. the russian belief that the country is under siege, and i use that term advisedly, from a western effort to undermine the stability of the russian government and replace it, and that the allies of the west, russian democrats feeds into this. that is the first point. democracy threatens russia. there was an essay in the wall street journal making clear democracy was the biggest threat to democracy and is the -- and still is. there's a profound fear on the part of the government of any manifestation by the public. in russia or elsewhere.

the middle east is an example that could spread to russia and the russians know it. russia is quite a long or at least was quite alarmed that you would see in central asia a manifestation of this kind. the deputy foreign minister actually got at and said they were quite worried about this and gave the central asians advice. dimitry medvedev tried to work out a strategy with is pakistan to stretch out any manifestation of what you might call a central asian spring. the motive here is the profound belief that the russian government is under threat from democracy and that democracy is essentially a western invention and that and me at home is the

enemy abroad. in other words, we still say a government addicted to the old leninist threat paradigm. 20 years after the cold war, even if it is an ideology gone the way of flesh, the government of moscow believes the internal and external enemy has the common goal of unseating the government through democracy demotion. many people cannot believe the revolution and the arab countries were autonomous affairs because they are all experiencing the politics and coups, provocations made by summit with something to gain from it. that is how they ended their own paranoia into the system. widespreadre isn't and purpose of -- pervasive attitude among the analytical factories that they use that any revolutionary movement in that arab world and in the muslim world generally, including central asia, is going to lead to the victory of islamic terrorists and fanatics. they can point to libya and say

i told you so. they haven't said much about in asia because to me is quiet even though the islamic party prevailed in the elections there. it's their belief that any manifestation of islamic political assertion is terrorist. they cannot see it any other way and they have brought this upon themselves in their caucuses which is out of control and is on the verge of spreading into the russian heartland. what they see in tripoli and benghazi and damascus is that if that dictator's fall, the only thing that would stand is the threat that will export itself to russia.

or foreign governments are supporting them in the caucasus -- we will probably never know who these foreign governments are. nonetheless, you might think there is an international muslim conspiracy to replace the old conspiracy that used to exist in the fevered soviet imagination, and they actually believe the stuff. therefore, they believe if assad does, al qaeda is going to come in. third, anti-americanism is a fundamental mainspring of all russian foreign policy, not just syria. two things have to be mentioned -- one is the belief as they see themselves under siege from u.s. democracy in general. they see the u.s. carrying out a strategy of information warfare, etc., links to non governmental organizations and hence the demonstrations and

ongoing streams of repressive legislation. today, they just opened a case against one of the leaders of the opposition. this is part of their world view, but geopolitically, their assessed the idea russia must be a great power in the middle east, which they see as an area close to their borders as if 1991 never happened. their objective is to prevent the of the leased from having a free hand to consolidate a geopolitical order in the middle east. that's one of the fundamental reasons behind their support for iraq. there are others, such as the fear of what me -- what might be done in the caucuses of russia was antagonistic to us. nonetheless, it is essential to russian geopolitical thinking that russia must play a role in the police and it cannot allow the middle east to be rendered peaceful by u.s. efforts alone. a continuation of tension, arms

sales, they have a program to run guns until 2008. there are running of guns and weapons we have seen in syria, attempts to talk about diplomacy against turkey and other similar examples -- russia is determined to play a great power role here and to prevent the united states from consolidating a geopolitical order. they see the united states as doing so or attempting to do so. and by that unilateral force by passing the un. russians say the un must be observed because of the only game in town and they have a veto power in the security council. when they want to accommodate this regard that un and make democracy -- and make a mockery of it. vladimir putin added that was the plan, despite the claims they were invoking article 51.

the un as a facade by which they pursue their main objectives of sculpting democracy and blocking the promotion of u.s. interests and power abroad. fourth, as i mentioned, they see that u.s. promotion of democracy not only as a threat to russia but as singularly on informed because they believe invariably it leads to protracted wars in the middle east. they invoke iraq in this example. they will tell you libya is completely out of control, though it does not approach with going on in the north caucasus despite the attack in been gauzy last month. they will also say if assad goes, islamist will take over. therefore that united states really does not know what it is doing and assad and opponents of the regime have to negotiate.

the fact is they will never support and leaving and they don't want him to leave because the new government would be anti-russian. that marginalizes russia and the least and renders the pursuit of the geopolitical objectives quite questionable. it would certainly probably mean because they will not be particularly prone shiite in lebanon, the funneling of weapons to hezbollah which a large scale operation going back six or seven years. the israelis discovered these weapons in 2006 and finally force the russians to admit they might have gotten them somehow. the fact is they went through syria and the russians knew all well who the end users of the system was. the fourth reason is the belief that united states doesn't know it's playing with fire.

finally, the fifth reason, they have substantial, though not nearly as substantial as these to become energy interests in syria. it's the only place for the navy can project power into the mediterranean and the navy has been itching for the opportunity to do so. by sending a fleet there twice, using it in cyprus as well to check turkey. and arms sales -- arms sales and russia are just a question of selling [indiscernible] they are trying to create block within syria and latest one is the $4.2 billion arms sales announced to iraq a week or 10 days ago. if iran manages to satisfy russian apprehensions with regard to the iaea, i would not be surprised to see russian

weapons back to iran. they are clearly trying to sell to everyone else in the middle east. of asymmetrical. -- asymmetric appointments in keeping russia in the game as hour. therefore, we have -- in the game as a great power. as many of you know, arms sales in russia are one of those mechanisms because the home sector is thoroughly corrupt, by which this slush funds are provided to top government officials for black operations of various kinds whether at home or abroad. to lose another $4 billion market, which they lost in libya, that would put a dent in the graft going to the top of the regime. we must never forget what we are dealing with here is what is called decriminalized regime. if you read wikileaks, it is all over the place.

if you have read the books by ed with this and the top foreign diplomats, it behaves like a mafia state. one of the principles of the mafia state is support your friends when they are in trouble. assad is a friend to the mafia state. thank you. >> thank you very much. would you like to bring it home? >> bring it home and try to connect to u.s. policy. there are different opinions in the community about why russia is so adamant about its support of bashar al-assad. it is a historic regime, a regime that goes back to the '60s and even the '50s. russia got along famously well with the regimes in iraq and syria and a regime in egypt it was not that different. basically, white secular arab socialists, ultranationalists in some cases.

these regimes for anti-american and with the leader of russia saying the soviet -- the death of the soviet union was the worst geopolitical pastor of the 20th-century, having an anti-american regime is a good thing. some said this is about iran. i think the iranian dimension we did not discussed in great detail here was an important dimension. iran is the strongest middle eastern, albeit not an arab country, but the strongest anti american middle eastern country. it has a relationship that goes back toward the gorbachev era when the late ayatollah sent a letter to gorbachev say mr gorbachev, instead of tear down this wall, he said the wall

fell, your ideology collapsed, and i shall convert to islam. there is a more and a protocol from a meeting where gorbachev mentioned that and they said ha ha. the president and the foreign minister and mocked -- in moscow signed the first arms transactions with russia. russia sold weapons both to their friends in iraq and to their friends in iran during the iraq-iran war. they felt great about and later run, there is a massive channel of nuclear expertise, hundreds of scientists and engineers, hundreds of iranian scientists and engineers being trained in russia. many of them were also trained in their west unfortunately. iran is extremely important as a battering ram against american interests and, by

implication, the suny arab allies. -- the sunni arab allies that are seen as still little satan's compared to america's great satan. undermining syria, giving iran a bloody nose is of course a major priority both for the sunni arab and for the west. therefore, russia supports its syrian allies. support, it does, including supply of weapons of different kinds, refurbishing of attack helicopters, providing as we saw, aircraft that was forced to land in on cross -- in turkey -- the dual use waiver parts were used to protect.

from turkish aircraft, one of which was shut down and you use it not only to conduct civilian traffic. a prominent observer of russian foreign policy, the head of the moscow office the carnegie endowment says it's not only about geopolitics, it's also about geopolitics. my colleagues did a good job talking about the port. there is also anchorage and a supply base. by the way, i published a list of russian aspirations and

priorities, including before muammar gaddafi went, there are thinking about renewing anchorage in libya and even thinking about going back to the island, the entrance to the red sea from the south, the island was an important soviet naval base during the cold war. so those aspirations of the russian navy are known and still there. probably we should take them with a grain of salt because of you look at the example of the black sea fleet, the last ship was introduced into service in 1992. the black sea fleet is not in great shape. there is a lot of work to be done there. in any event, it's not only about geopolitics, it's not

about arms sales, it is about respect. i don't want to go over the mafia metaphor that steve just did, but in deed, not just mafia see, but real powers sometimes crave respect. its about who makes decisions. if the decision about the use of force in syria is made without russia or against russian opposition, vladimir putin will look at it in a very grave way just as he and his allies at a time looked at our decision to use force in iraq in 2003 and, before that, for those who track the russian fears back then, and 1999, i believe that the then prime minister turned the plane around in the atlantic when the bombing of serbia started and went back because russia was not appropriately consulted over the use of force against slobodan milosevic, let alone getting a russian agreement in the security council.

they issues of sovereignty, the issue of use of force, the issues of agreement, how to use force are extremely important not just for russia but also for china. in the three vetoes in the security council, it was not just russia, but also china who opposed any kind of resolution that may have led to the use of force against the assad regime. my colleague mentioned the russian abstained at the security council on libya.

that was very important because that was a rare, public disagreement. he apparently went along, saying that russia should be on the same bandwagon with the west. i do not know if the arab sumi tents -- sensitivity was going on. he used the word crusade. a western crusade against gaddafi. because they had this weird separation of the work, he prevailed. there was a public -- about that decision. i personally think it was right. then russia would pay a very high price by not just standing idly by. but aiding and abetting the murder of all arm -- of on armed people in muslim society. here, we go to a very important statement by the leading muslim brotherhood ideologue that my

colleague mentioned. when i saw it, i read and reread what was said. they command the loyalty of thousands of thousands of islamists. we all know that he was no friend of the united states. he is no friend of united states. he justified the killing of american soldiers in iraq. he justified the killing of civilians. he said a 30,000 syrians were killed -- what weapons were they killed? and with anything else, its needs -- the army is farming people with airplanes. why these planes are not -- is a bombing -- is bombing people with their plans.

we must boycott russia and consider russia our number one enemy. i repeat we must consider russia our number one enemy. here is the list for the global islamist sumi movement. this is a major confrontation, ladies and gentleman. this is no joke. as they said, we are in an ongoing sumi insurrection. it started and the leaders were soviet general kernels and then by 1996, the movement was hijacked by islamists. today, the rhetoric, the narrative, the tactics are all jihad islamist tactics. why do not agree it will be spilling over, as my colleague suggested, because one was killed and one was severely wounded. there is radicalization. it is not there yet, but in places this is a day to day struggle. law enforcement and the local civilians are killed by the radicals. russia has a serious problem on

their hands with that. beyond that, a lot of analysts point out that for the russian government, for an interim pension were there is an insurgency or even a civilian mass protests is a big no.

that is why they want to support

the syrian regime. let's not forget that this is in syria. a minority rule by the group that is close over 80% of the population which is sunni. somehow, the russian leaders and the analysts tend to disregard it or do not give enough weight to that. i really do not understand how come that little significant detail is being ignored. i find that when i talked to russian officials, a willful

misunderstanding and that -- and lacking of knowledge about the middle east and islam. been referred to their own terrorists as criminals and the whole view was that these are just some groups that can be dealt through the prism of crime-fighting that's probably reminds some of us of some other countries that are making this a mistake. but, what it does, the two mitt take-home points that i want to make our one, that this clash over syria changes the dynamics that we saw for the last 20 years in the middle east. it was not so bad.

turkey and russia were talking to each other. a thriving and economic relationship. russia made inroads in many parts of the middle east, including the gulf. there were selling weapons to the sunni. russia improve its relations with israel. things were not so bad. now, we are in a situation where these formal alliances are unraveling. the relationship between russia and turkey, for example, it is in its lowest point in the last 20 years. so much -- declared subzero problems without neighbors. zero problems with russia, 0 comes with greece -- i am being sarcastic. turkey is a hereditary enemy of

russia. there is a history of over 300 years of incessant wars. i think both sides need to tread very carefully as to how far this confrontation can go. the russians, i think, are finding themselves on the wrong side of the large middle eastern divide. they have squirrely aligned themselves with syria. they essentially are the diplomatic sugar daddies. in the long term, when you look at the resources, when you look at the population, it will be the sunni arabs who will be the force in this a divide. we heard a lot about the obama administration pushing the reset button. of course, reset was not translated. it was built -- overload,

instead of reset. but the syrian case, as many other cases of missile defense and others, demonstrate the depth of the fear of the united states. the amnesty and the inability to find common ground. the radical, if we recognize the russian interest -- and the specific interest -- not the geopolitical ideas and fantasies, but, yes, there is a $4 billion market for arms. in libya, there is x billion dollars of going arms sales to syria. and that the struggle with the iranians.

there is a minor chemical operation going on where russia was buying chemicals and selling them. not all of these things could have been discussed. instead, what we now have is a continuation of a confrontation which is ongoing between the united states and russia, but what is demonstrated to us is the enormity of the failure of the recent policy. the recent policy does not provide any ability for us and the russians to resolve on going to political conflicts and issues. unfortunately, the syrian people, their blood is the price for that. thank you. >> all right. i have to tell you, if you have not been to these things before, you have just been treated to an overload of expertise and, frankly, very intellectually, even handed

ideas on an issue that i think it is both under appreciated and under reported as an aspect of the middle eastern issues. but this is now time for q&a. get our microphones moving. when i call on you, wait for the microphone. i am going to exercise my prerogative to ask the first question. this is for anybody incumbent upon. is there a possibility of russia playing a positive role in syria starting from today? what is the worst-case scenario of a role russia could play. >> that is two questions. >> i know. but in the moderator, so i get

to do that. >> it is easier to answer the first question. is there a positive role that russia could play? yes. it could change its policy and allow the u.n. to intervene and get assad on trial, where he belongs. establish a process where power can be taken in a legitimate way. not going to happen. the second, worst-case scenario, a few days ago he was up there about nuclear war. russia is not going to intervene in syria. the worst possible case is, of course, an intervention that fails. the indescribable chaos. also, that spreads. either of those two situations are, perhaps, the worst possible case. >> it is spreading already. it is spreading to lebanon and jordan. >> the husband of violence.

-- there has not been of violence in lebanon. at the same time, there is so many other places where you could have a fire began. -- which i think the russians are, here. >> i agree that russia is unlikely to help us in the united states. we have tried three times in the u.n.. cotton three vetoes in return. best case, maybe i was in china a few months ago. talking about, maybe they should concentrate on domestic problems, rather than having a domestic -- rather than having an aggressive domestic foreign policy. it is a possibility.

i would give you my worst case, and it may be unfolding before our eyes. nato has guarantee turkey's borders. in case, what happened in just a week ago flares up -- more shelling. remember when i said in my presentation. he decides -- nonetheless, he might escalate the conflict the russians will not intervene. they said they -- their treaty with syria is not going to guarantee russian aid. we could see a nice war opening up with my then dragged into russia with the iranians. then it begins to escalate this brings pressure on united states.

the real payoff, and here i spoke -- here i agree with jim. i'm a liberal democrat -- i do not usually do it. the stakes are so high. the syrian government false and is replaced by a moderate islamist government that the u.s. government can work with, here the u.s. will send -- the u.s. will spend much more time to creighton opposition we can work with. -- that we can work with. this is a huge issue. my hope is that after the election, the administration might change its policy. >> i would caution and say that we should not delude ourselves that the people who may take over syria in the style of the professor.

there are different people fighting in syria. there are some that are more or less secular. the syrian people army -- of the free syrian army. the syrian cancel, the kurds, these are all rather secular people. some of them are refugees. on the other hand, there are islamists and there are elements all kind in iraq. and to get this right is very difficult. we saw how difficult this was in libya where one of former al

qaeda figure became a security chief. and two, the tragic attack and we heard from the president himself. he did call it a terrorist attack the next day. the tragic attack that took lives of chris stevens and three other embassy personnel. there are a lot of bad actors in syria. we saw them going across the syria-iraq border and killing our people there. among these are the -- and of the brotherhood. there is no scarcity of bad actors there.

the cautionary note of every so- called arab spring in every country brings to the surface in egypt, in syria, and now some bad apples in that syria. everybody has to be very careful not to rush in and can just clear the path for worst actors. some of them may be worse. >> very briefly on that -- i agree with what everyone else says. however, as it has been mentioned, you have the islamist take over a nationalist war against the russians. you almost had the same thing happen in bosnia in 1995. you may be seeing that happen now in syria, but i do not think it is over yet.

i think what has to be done, and i've fought -- and i spoke to ambassador for about it and he shared his frustrations. after the election, the u.s. will have to work much harder in unifying the syrian opposition and work the more secular forces come out on top once assad goes. if you see what is happening now, you have more and more support going to the jihad. have we reached the tipping point yet where they control the opposition of assad? hopefully not.

we will see. hopefully sooner rather than later. >> get to the microphone, identify yourself, and as the question. >> are there circumstances in which russian would consider military intervention? >> i cannot see any. the operational obstacles are formidable. they have to get flights over turkey or the turks will have to allow them to open up the streets. i just do not see that happening. what contingency would justify doing that? no. i do see an expanded effort to engage in what you might call intelligence and selling weapons to various factions assad factions -- if assad himself of falls. >> the question i am asking myself is at what point will

decide to use the threat of a nuclear confrontation. reread the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis. clearly, the relationship, the dynamic, the balance of power is very different than in 1962. but, as he said, it is not about geopolitics. it is about respect and decisions. well i think the probability of a nuclear threat is very low, i do not think it is a zero. even today and even over syria. having said that, in the next five to 10 years if somebody asked me, i would say that we may come to see, especially taking into account the 700 billion russian military modernization. was it defcon 3 instead of that on to? threats by the russian federation -- instead of defcon

2? threats by the russian federation. >> what chance do think if obama is reelected with the reset do reset? and considering the incredible bread and complexity, what is the direction -- and considering the incredible a threat and complex the, what is the direction? >> we believe on the score. i'm not sure what a signals president obama is sending him, but he has said that he believes, like on some other issues that president obama is waiting until after the election to engage more forcefully on syria. i am not sure that will come to pass.

i think there are strong reasons for the u.s. refraining from getting on the ground. unless, worst case scenarios come to pass involving syrian chemical weapons as you testified about. but i do not see the u.s. in a direct military intervention. perhaps, if there risk greater cooperation with turkey and turkey went in on the ground. maybe the u.s. might provide some kind of air cover or some kind of no fly zone. my worry there is that if we get involved in a no fly zone, that could be an open-ended

commitment which will not be decisive as far as displacing the us of -- as far as displacing the assad regime. i think we will have to become more realistic about the situation. we will have to look outside and see if it will take effective action. that will mean a close cooperation with turkey. >> ok. right here in the front. >> thank you. i am with the american national committee. this will be a question about the info wars. what are your perception about what the reaches of al jazeera? i imagined that assad controls the message there in the country. brought into the region, the western media or russian

services -- may be also a word about the kurds. >> ok. i will start. >> i have a hard enough time keeping up with the u.s. government, so i cannot claim great expertise on al jazeera. clearly, from what i watch, it is astonishingly against assad. and rt, russia today, is the arabic service of russia today. we, by the way, do not have anything cut from al jazeera. english, arabic, chinese, you name it -- we cannot have it. there is great credibility for al jazeera is the arab world. it is probably one of the highest-watched channels. so, both. in preparation for this, i was reading an article by the general editor who claims that

he read the syrian intelligence analysis that they obtained from the embassy in moscow. that was quite interesting. basically saying that the russians will never abandon an asset and they are willing to fight until the last hello. in syria. today, it is a multi source -- multi-media environment. is not just a tv show. it is the internet. we see activists being quoted extensively in every report from damascus, from lebanon -- you name it. i think your question leads to a

broader policy issue -- what is today? what are we, 11 years after 9/11? what is our information footprint? in the arab world in the muslim world, and worldwide, our information footprint in the world where russia, china -- you mentioned al jazeera itself. the french, the germans -- you name it -- are spending $1.7 billion a year for information. if i may, a separate issue. that we did not talk about. that is the syrian chemical wars. that escalates in syria in terms of intervention. our intervention, a russian intervention, nato intervention, turkey intervention -- no one should trifle with chemical weapons. when you read a report that the north koreans and the chinese are helping the syrians to produce and secure and manage their chemical weapons near when the fighting is all over the place and they are stocking

up on diesel generators in case, they're under siege of these chemical weapons facilities, that scares even me. >> ok. we have time. >> a word about the kurds. the business is very tricky. turkey's biggest fear is the breaking up of turkey and the kurdish area from turkey. they are very unhappy with united states intervened in i iraq. it strengthened of the kurdish resistance. it brought the kurdish rebellion back to life. there now worry that the kurds in syria are to join with the kurds in iraq and that will make things even more difficult for turkey.

the turks have tried to balance this by having very good relations political and economical in the north. it is a very tricky business. and we have not seen the end of it. that is one of the things on their minds. >> all right. adam. i work here at "heritage." i was wondering if anyone thinks that russia may be operating whenever it needs to do on a slightly accelerated timescale given the grand pr tactic -- pageant. and that they're not going to want a bad pr. this will either accelerate or

make sure the issue is cleaned up. again, they still want everything cleaned. >> i have not seen anything that connects it with syria. if someone decides to intervene in syria, these are not the kinds of affairs you can manage -- according to a timetable. i do not think -- the real problem is not syria. it is possible that when the winter olympics open in 2014 the jihadists will be active there. >> there is a lot of attention to the czech issue. in the last year or two, a profile of the movement and ethnic cleansing in the 19th cleansing -- century became more visible.

there is a campaign. it is linked. the georgians said they did not want the gravel and building materials for the olympics. they have a stronger case because there from the region. i am sure that that will make the russians on happy. i saw a contra -- construct that said if the syrian business is going on for a long time that will radicalize people in the north caucasus and make the environment even more dangerous. i do not know -- i think about it with a look -- with a little bit of luck it will pull it off, something bad happens inside of russia. >> i like to give each of the

speaker's two minutes to give us the last take away you want us to have as we walked out of the door. jim, we will start with you. >> in terms of u.s. policy, whoever is elected in november, they must become more realistic about what is going on inside syria and how best to approach it. i have no problem with multilateralism, especially in an area of the world that is so volatile where you need allies if only to minimize the footprint so u.s. forces on the ground. we cannot get that by going through the united nations. we have to remember who are our friends are. israel, turkey, jordan, our nato allies. working to boost the syrian

opposition to bring the fight into in end as soon as possible. i do not think a political settlement is likely. the obama administration is holding out walking russian cooperation at the u.n. we need to look at multilateral operations with friends and not with rivals. in the long run, that is the way to go not only on syria but on broader foreign policy in general. >> mr. obamas bet and it helped. the sanctions against iran, which they would form. it was an improvement of relations. were were women's -- there limits on arms to syria.

things the buyer. the russians have taken a huge gamble year. they have taken a very big gamble. they are lining themselves up with the share crescent in the u.s. -- alienating much if not all of the sunni islamic world. in the long run, this is a losing proposition. selling $4.20 billion worth of arms to iraq, which brought arms from czechoslovakia in from the united states as the iraqis are trying to balance their arms purchases. it does not make up for this. >> i think that the incoming administration is going to have to rethink what it wants to

accomplish in the middle east, with its real objectives and capabilities are, and they have to be brought into alignment. if the objectives are that assad be removed and a more acceptable syria, i do not accept a liberal democratic syria, come to pass, it will have to work with allies and our intelligence capability will have to increase to credit them before. -- increase to greater capability them before. on regional security issues, it is possible with moscow. i except on a limited basis.

they will help us get out of afghanistan. they do not want us to leave from afghanistan. they do not. iran to have a nuclear weapon carried they are not prepared to stop it from getting a nuclear weapon. same with nuclear -- same with north korea. the limits to an reset round are in place. regardless of what mr. rahman are mr. romney won. >> the next demonstration has to recognize that we sent a bunch of which will thinking. we need to take a look at our interest in the middle east broader. none to syria.

the name of the game ends iran, the iranian nuclear program, and i s the price of stopping the nuclear program having the regime in iran getting a blow inside iran for losing syria? i wish them a strong debate of who lost area, then so be it. whoever is in the next a ministration, and some adults understand geopolitics, not to say theory, but in practice. and i look at this current administration, i wonder about that. >> ladies and gentlemen, i would ask you in thanking our panel for a rich discussion. [applause] we also things which i think the folks that came in on c-span2. have a wonderful day. thank you for being here at heritage. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >>

of the enemy understand a free iraq will be this. that is why they're fighting. they showed up in afghanistan because they tried to beat us and they did not. if we lose our will, we lose. if we're remain strong, we will defeat this enemy. >> 92nd response. >> i believe in being strong and determined. i will hunt down and killed the terrorists wherever they are. we also have to be smart. diverting yourt attention from the real woar osama bin laden to iraq where there is no connection itself. were the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction.

this president has made a colossal error wweor i the president of the united states of america. >> you can see more of this debate from the 2004 campaign later tonight along with other debates from our archives. watch the 84 debate between ronald reagan and walter mondale and for 1988, a george bush and michael dukakis. it is all starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> i have to be honest with you. i love these debates. these things are great. it is interesting that the president still does not have an agenda for a second term. don't you think it is time for him to finally put together a vision for what he would do in the next four years and?

he has come up with that. >> let's recap what we learned. the tax plan does not add up. the jobs plan does not create jobs. the deficit reduction plan add to the deficit. has heard of the new deal. you heard of the square deal. mitt romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. we are not buying it. >> what engage monday as president obama and ronnie meet in their final debate moderated by bob from florida. our debate previous starts a 7:00 p.m. eastern followed by the debate at 9:00 and your reaction at 10:30 p.m. >> the defense department official says improvised

explosive devices remain the choice and afghanistan. they are an enduring global threat. michael is the director of the defense department joint ied defeat organization. he spoke wednesday at an event hosted by the elected -- atlantic council in washington, d.c. it is about one hour and 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am shuja nawaz. on behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of our president, i want to welcome all of you to this very special session with

lt. gen. michael barbero, the director of the joint ied defeat organization as the u.s. department of defense. i do not think one can understate the importance of the issue, particularly at this stage in the battle in afghanistan. not only within afghanistan, but the effects of the war on neighboring countries including pakistan, where the i.e.d.'s are also huge problem. we thought it would be useful to have lt. gen. michael barbero on what the nature of this global threat is and what is being done and can be done to counter it. i will briefly give you a little background and then we will listen to lt. gen. michael

barbero and open it up for an exchange with all of you. he was commissioned in the infantry after graduation from the u.s. military academy at west point. in 1976, in addition to every assignment at the tactical level, he has commanded at every grade from lieutenant-colonel to lieutenant-general. as a brigadier general, he commanded one of the combat training centers of the army, the joint readiness training center. as a major general, he commanded the u.s. army infantry center at fort benning, georgia. prior to joining jieedo, he served over three years in three separate tours in iraq where among his many duties he commanded the multinational security transition, and, iraq and training mission in nato. his a master's degree in national-security and strategic studies from the national defense university washington, d.c., is a graduate of the army's command and the school of the advanced military studies program.

he has far too many awards for me to list, but you can see it on his chest. i think that should be where i will stop. i am delighted that he agreed to speak with us. the floor is yours. >> thank you for that introduction. other than the year i was commissioned, i am reluctant to mention that as i get older. thank you for the opportunity to see many familiar faces. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss a little bit about this and how i have framed my comments, i want to discuss a organization briefly and what we do. how we see the current fight in afghanistan and then how this is truly a global threat and an enduring one. what we're doing about it, then briefly, some thoughts about future capabilities i think need to be retained. first of all, as you know, the

joint ied defeat organization or jieedo, was acquitted in 2006, with some fairly unique abilities. -- was created in 2006, with some fairly unique abilities. the war fighter is our customer. we have about 200 individuals for it in afghanistan down to the maneuverable battalion level. we are well resources. we have some rapid acquisition authorities that allow us to field capabilities with the goal, fielding them in months and not years. the most important word in our mission is rapidly. that is why we exist. if we cannot respond in a rapid manner, we should not exist. we prosecute our mission along three lines of operation, the first is training the force.

often not discussed or thought about, but as we found out, the based capability we have as a well trained soldier is -- the best capability is a well trained soldier or marine. when i arrived in jieedo i would have told you our biggest gap is training. which we worked hard to fix. the second line of operation is defeating the device. frankly, that carries or requires a large amount of our funding. we must focus on that because by defeating the device, we afford our commanders freedom of maneuver and limit casualties. however, the third line of operation, attack the network, is the the size of effort. that is where you have, in effect, on the network that supplies and everything that goes into the employment of this weapon. so the current fight in afghanistan, the ied remains

the weapon of choice. it is in during as a weapon of choice. in the last two years, i.e.d. events have increased 42%, from about 9300 events in 2009 to about 16,000 events in 2011. 2011 had our highest annual number of ied events ever. june 2012 is a little bit below 2011, the june 2012 was the highest monthly level of ied events we have seen. overall number of i.e.d.'s has remained high. there are some areas where i think we have seen improvement. two critical areas are look at are found and cleared, are we to in the ability to fight and clear these i.e.d.'s before they are deployed in front of

us. that has steadily been proved. in the same 90 days compared to last year the same time, increased 12% for our mounted forces. the second metric i would point to is the obvious one, casualties. casualties are below 57% below last year's rate, despite, as i said, the high number of i.e.d.'s. we focused on limiting effect of attack, those attacks that caused casualties or killings. many factors have contributed to what we see as progress in this fight and increased effectiveness of i.e.d.'s. i will list a couple prefers from supplying lessons learned. what are we doing right? what is the enemy doing? what are best practices? and applying that in our pre deployment training, which i said, has been a focus for it equipment search. in the last year, we fielded an increased number of capabilities, especially focusing on dismounted operations and is very vulnerable dismounted troopers. just a few numbers. we feel that in the last 10

months, 1100 ultralight robots, 210,000 sets of public protection, more than 8000 hand- held devices and to locate components of the ied, and another 2000 will be filled before the next fighting season. improvements to batteries and external battery packs. it is a continuous process to field a prepense to existing capabilities. we repositioned eight airborne systems from iraq to afghanistan and delivered an additional four systems, focused on the ied and components that comprise them. there has been in equipment surge. increase in biometrics collection and capability. dna, fingerprint, and other indicators. this is critical. through biometrics, we can remove the greatest defense these networks have, that of

anonymity. there has been adjustments to tactics, which is a continuous process. one of will point out is how we approach clearance operations. a tremendous focus on that. also, our commanders tell us the increase in part during operations with the afghan security forces. they're found unclear rates are much higher because they know what to look for they have engagements with the local population. finally, we have super commanders and troopers on the ground or continuously refining techniques, procedures, and adjusting and tailoring those adjustments to the specific

threat. but as i look at the fight in afghanistan, i see two fights back view it. first is a mounted one and one is dismounted. they have different threats and require different capabilities. mounted, there is an individual at the end of a wire when he sees a vehicle, a specific vehicle cross into the danger zone and will detinate the ied. largely using culverts, where they can pack more explosives for a greater net explosive weight that they try to defeat our vehicle improvements. the attack rate remains down for mounted. we're not seen the lethal weapon we saw in iraq, but we are seeing large amounts of explosives with the command wire. i look at that as the enemy's precision guided munitions. what are the critical neighbors? airborne sensors of all types, culvert denial systems, predetination capabilities, robots and vehicle-born ground penetrating radar. as i look at the dismounted operations, the i.e.d.'s we see

are mostly in the south and southwest, largely victim operated, nonmetallic pressure plates, two pieces of wood increasingly carbon rods from batteries that are used in these multiple number from a larger number of i.e.d.'s. we had one incident a couple of weeks ago with over 20 i.e.d.'s and about 100-150 meter radius as they were moving. multiple i.e.d. a raise. smaller, two to 3 pounds of explosives is devastating to dismounted squad. the found unclear rates continue to improve. critical enablers for these operations are hand-held detectors, protective undergarments, explosive line

charges where we can shoot out a line of explosives and that make those along the path of movement, ultra thin, robots, dogs are all key in this fight. in talking about afghanistan, it is about home explosives. over 84% of the i.e.d.'s are used combine with common explosives. different than iraq and different from what is seen in other locations. 84% are home explosives. of those, more than 50% or ammonium nitrate based, derived from fertilizer. this continues to be a problem. in the last 90 days, compared to the previous time last year, our seizures of home explosives have increased 133%. in the last 90 days, we have seized 131 tons of homemade explosives, largely ammonium nitrate. so this is the challenge in

afghanistan, detecting and the flow of ammonium nitrate. it is easily processed into an explosive. it is being used increasingly around the world. so that is a brief description of afghanistan. that is our focus. every day. it starts with the discussion of what took place in afghanistan and how we can attack it. it goes without saying, as was said, this is a global threat, not exclusive to afghanistan. outside of afghanistan every month, there are more than 500 ied events. and since january 2011, there have been more than 10,000 global ied event occurring in over 112 countries, executed by what we judge to be more than 40 regional or transnational threat networks. as of september, the top five countries in ied incidents outside of afghanistan, the first is pakistan. our pakistani partner suffer greatly from these networks and

these weapons. columbia, the second. india is third. syria and somalia are in the top five also. it is not just about the devices. it is about the networks. and we see increased collaboration and cooperation between the networks. for example, in africa, with the increased coordination between al qaeda and the islamic group and al-shabab. in somalia, and nigeria as well. collaboration and training and resources. sharing funds and techniques materials. nigeria is seeing a large surge in ied activity. in 2010, they had 52 events. this year, so far, 218. similar growth in somalia. not as drastic as nigeria. syria has seen a tremendous increase in i.e.d. activity. in 2011, we estimate syria had 330 casualties from i.e.d.'s. so far in 2012, 2086 casualties.

it has been a tremendous growth. colombia and mexico also. as i look at this, it is an enduring threat that i think both operational and to our forces and domestically will be here for decades. as i said, it is not just about the devices, but about the networks. and we see the ied as a weapon of choice along the threat continuum. at everything from the low end criminal smugglers, narcotics networks, all the way up to the high end terrorist networks and everything in between. these networks are resilient, adaptive, and very agile. as i tell my friends there centers of excellence are virtual, flat, and unencumbered. they seamlessly communicate sharing recipes, ttp's. i think the way they communicate their command and control system is a huge

strategic advantage for them. then we see the proliferation of techniques across these various networks. the projectiles we saw used so effectively, the iranian weapons we saw in iraq, in the gaza strip, and have seen them start to appear in somalia. the vehicle born i.e.d.'s originated in the middle east. we see in mexico as the drug cartel's target each other. the female suicide bombers. we think originated with the tigers in sri lanka. we have seen across the middle east, southern europe, somalia, and nigeria, russia, and as we see in afghanistan. i like to say that while we in the military in the u.s. march to the sound of the bands, these threat networks march to the size of instability and take the ied with them.

we must address the network. it is the critical enabler to attack these. whatever is most cheapest, readily available components. largely an increasingly off the shelf. command wire, pressure plates for it when they can, radio control triggers. off-the-shelf components, improvised blasting caps that are harder to detect. in the future, when will they migrate is not a question of when they agreed to ultrathin electronics, used wi-fi and bluetooth as triggering devices from optical initiators and how can they mix highly energetic materials to create an explosive? and enhanced concealment, as we have seen on aircraft and other places. it is a threat both to networks and devices are here to stay.

how do we approach this? i think in the future as we are exercising today, increasingly the whole of government approach. dod cannot do this alone. the phrase is, it takes a network to feed a network, and that is true. we have partnered and we have 17 federal agencies and services that work with us and have liaison's assigned to us. atf, department of homeland security, fbi, state, commerce, etc., plus our international partners, the u.k., australia, and canada all have officers working with us. we also have a link with nato intelligence. so in order to execute this whole government process, it starts with intelligence, focused intelligence on these networks where their operating,

what are their vulnerabilities. then applying all of the tools that are interagency partners bring to the table. i refer to it as non kinetic targeting. how can we sit tools of state, treasury, and commerce. the me give you some examples of how we have done that and the results of this process. commerce has added 152 persons to the entity list because of ied-related matters. it stops u.s. companies from trading or working with a foreign entity. treasury is imposed economic sanctions on 33 targets that affect the ied flow into afghanistan. there is a news report in reuters i saw today where they just designated three additional individuals. as of september, dhs global sirte -- global shield program has 40 enactments and 44 seizures. the state has applied a public outreach campaign in various places and also using diplomacy to engage government's that and have an effect on some of their

entities. those are just a few examples being applied in this whole of government approach. we have also engaged the fertilizer industry and encouraged them to apply a whole industry approach. i will tell you want to describe the problem to the fertilizer industry, i believe there are very committed to this. both the international fertilizer association, the largest association of ammonium nitrate, they have created a product security board. we have as the industry to first, implement a universal by program so these materials can be easily present nine by border police -- recognized by border police, border authorities. they look something easier to identify than they are today, which is a milky white, to be disguised and often repackaged as detergent or other materials. the second, develop a non- detinable alternative to

calcium nitrate in its current form. right now it is too easy. as an industry, they need to take this on. third, institute affected industrywide standards on the distribution and tracking of their products. finally, fourth, produce a global education and awareness program on what to look for for the misuse and misappropriation of these products. we understand there is a huge challenge. given the ubiquity of these products, they're essential nature to the global agriculture, however we feel, this must be addressed using every tool possible. as with the to the future, what do we think? i know if i get asked about the future of our organization, i will talk about it.

but in my view, enduring threat requires enduring capabilities. whenever we have come out of any conflict, we have taken a hard look at what worked, what we need to retain as far as to the ability and what are the threats we need to prepare for for the future. i believe we need to retain his rapid acquisition and fielding capability. we cannot go back to the acquisition and fielding capabilities that we had on september 10. how do we do this? how do we share this with our allies? we must retain this operational intelligence and information fusion and analysis so we can provide our commanders in real- time through reach back intelligence they need to immediately have situational awareness and to conduct operations against these networks. training. we must institutionalize the ied and the networks that employ them as a key threat and factory in our training. the whole of government approach. there's a tremendous sense of urgency in our government because of the casualties and affects to our troopers and nato troops in afghanistan. we must maintain this capability

because the networks will endure. next-to-last, i think weapons, technical intelligence. as i said, this removes the anonymity from these networks. everything from biometrics, dna, fingerprint, how can we retain these and not break them apart? it is a powerful game changer. how can we retain that as a skill. for the military, how can we continue to convert intelligence into evidence, to enable our agency partners to apply the tools they have. the final skill i think we need to have is what i call financial intelligence. the life blood of these networks is there funding. where is it? what institutions are cooperating? where is that nexus between licit commerce and activities and illicit activities? where are the vulnerabilities and their funding and have to

me go after them? in my view, we have built this capability. everyone in the u.s. interagency, everyone does a little and no one does enough. how can we build this capability and retain it into the future? just some parting thoughts. just as the artillery was the greatest casualty producer in the 20th century, the i.e.d. i believe is the artillery of the 21st century. there is no silver bullet to stop these casualty producing devices on the battlefield or here at home. and these networks and devices i believe are and enduring global threat both wherever we go operational in the future and here at home. they must be met with a coherent and focused approach into the future as we deal with these. with that, thank you for the opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. if i may, i will launch with a couple of short questions and hope our colleagues will then join in the conversation with

you. i very first question relates to the transition in afghanistan. you mentioned the training of partners. clearly, a big challenge which will remain is the ied, once the in the states and the coalition departs. to what extent is their capacity? do you have enough time to convert that capacity into a fighting force that will be able to counter the ied once the coalition ceases fanatic operations? >> we're in the process of to transitions. one is from a leading combat to an advisory role, and different formations with differing capabilities, u.s. for missions are deploying to answer that. the largest challenge is a transition to afghan security forces. first on u.s. forces, through 2014, we are focused on supporting this force.

as we saw in iraq when the number of your troops reduces and you're no longer in the lead and as active as you are, your situational awareness becomes less. how do compensate? there are a number of capabilities. additional counter id capabilities, isr. as our boots on the ground, the number of troops goes down, does not mean all of our capabilities will reduce proportionally. many will stay the same, some will need to increase. the afghan security forces, because of my funding, i cannot directly fund their capabilities. but we are engaged, dr. carter, secretary of defense, has taken it as a party to look at how we can support the building. as you talk to brigade commanders as i did in july and will do next week when i go, they tell you when the

department operations, the afghan forces are very effective. they don't need the same abilities we do. they need capabilities they can sustain and capabilities that are suited to their skills. so that is what the isaf has looked at and in the process of building. counter id, route clearance and other capabilities are being dealt appropriately. as i said, when they are out front are partnering with us, they are very effective in this effort. >> my next question is about the relatively smaller part of pakistan. i know this has been the source

of some debate and discussion, particularly with the pakistani partners on how best to prevent the flow of fertilizer that is used to create these weapons. pakistan is not the sole source of this fertilizer, i understand, but to what extent is that discussion yielding fruit? >> you use the right term there, they are our partners. as i said in my remarks, pakistan has suffered greatly. their security forces, civilians to these networks and these devices. as i said, outside of afghanistan, they have the no. 1 in monthly incidents. so we have had discussions. we have had several exchanges. we have had two groups of pakistani military visit here to our headquarters and similar training facilities. i've been there twice to meet with our pakistani partners to talk about this. every leader from secretary clinton and general allen and our ambassadors in pakistan have made this a topic of discussion. in our view, this is a mutual

threats that should elicit a neutral response, and is an area that is obvious for cooperation. as i have engaged i iraqi -- i'm sorry, pakistani partners, i have said, we are here to assist. let us know where we can help. we have capabilities we can havn share with you. however, we must do something about these networks and this flow of materials into afghanistan. what can be done? in my view, pakistan has taken a step and develop a national strategy. they have responsibility for that. i have believed it needs to be researched. we must improve. i have given you the numbers from afghanistan.

there must be a partnership and that as well. we are ready to cooperate with this in this effort. we are partners. we both agree we need to cooperate. we need to move from discussing cooperation to active cooperation. >> thank you. any questions? >> could i request that when the microphone comes to you if you could identify yourself. and it could signal made be. >> three questions related your comments about the future. post 2014, when we are out of

afghanistan, could you expand on the future, but also in the context of austerity. in terms of cost exchange ratios, what we spend as opposed to what they spend, it is not in our favor. and second, you did not touch on a the case of ieds, and thirdly, what about airborne ieds, and drums when the other side gets them. there have been drones over israel, someone was arrested in virginia for trying to use them. there are going to be flying ieds. i want to know what your thoughts are on how you or someone else are addressing them. >> the right question is, is the ieds and are the networks that employed them here to stay, and they are. if we have enduring threat do we require enduring capability?

the answer is yes. dr. carter has taken on the effort of looking at not only jido but these other task forces throughout the years to address a need for urgent requirement. and how to reshape the that and how do we resources that? he has taken not on. and over the next few months, he has said we will work through this. he has told us clearly, our mission, our resources and, our focus through 2014 remains unchanged. more to follow on the future. my view is -- there are certain problems and challenges that are best served with a joint response, this is one of them. going to services do great work. when you talk about different program managers, the navy has the lead for counter radio

controlled eds. the earth force brings other skills. as do the army and marines. this calls for a joint organization that is tapped into not just this, but all commanders. we received requests from all commanders for intelligence and analysis and also other capabilities. just to get out forgot, the organizations i mentioned. must be tied in with a global perspective. see based, we are involved with the navy and three specific initiatives that we are funding through the navy, from sensors to the ability to look for counter swimmer and some other capabilities. i sank, as we go to the future we need to look to the house from a wide range of what is possible and start to developing counter capabilities.

whether it is seaborne or as you mentioned, in the air. now, you mentioned the cost exchange ratio. their business model is crushing hours. i talked to my industry partners. i said the days of us spending hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of millions on this are over. we have got to be more effective and more efficient. and whenever we develop has to the exhibition area has to apply in other areas other than afghanistan. when you can buy a bag of fertilizer for about $100 and added that with a little propane, water and a tarp, dry it out, some plastic jugs, that creates six to eight devastating ieds -- we cannot sustain that. we have to do two things, we have to create a way to build capabilities more efficiently and effectively on our end to

drive down our costs and have to drive theirs up. physical cost of finance is right now, had we see is black assets and make it more costly and a wide range of ways for them to do business. that is what i see we must do your. until 2014, we are here, while resource and focused on the fight in afghanistan. thank you. >> kathy mccormack from cbs. i have a couple questions. june was the highest monthly hasina? >> yes. for a number of id'd events. this event is one that has designated one we have found. everything that includes one that we encounter in afghanistan. and the number of those was an all-time high in june. >> in the time is past, what have you learned about why it --

were there more operators, were there more locations in which there were planted? >> i think it goes back to -- 200011 was the highest ever. they say they are these high number of events can be interpreted as failure. i do not look at it that way. we had a larger number of troops going into areas described as safe havens. this is a weapon that they employ. you are going to have more events. and of the last few months there have been operations with the transition to the afghan. have been very active in certain areas. it is hard to explain. but it is deadly supply system -- is supply problem.

--so they have been very active in certain areas. it is hard to explain, but it gets back to a supply problem. when we are sweeping historic amounts of this fertilizer and other materials off the battlefield and the number of i.e.d.'s remains high, we have to do something different other than playing defense in afghanistan. >> secondly, on the number of explosives seized, the ammonium nitrate, were there certain areas where you found more of that and where was it coming from? >> we see ammonium nitrate everywhere, calcium ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer, and bags, largely, also after it has been processed into ammonium nitrate, which is more explosive form at it. we also see potassium chlorate, which is another product used in industry to make matches and other things. we have seen a slight increase in that. potassium chlorate, we shall see associated with the haqanni network. those are the two prime components of the explosive charges. most of it has come through pakistan.

>> we have a question. >> general, i would like to delve a little further into the seaborne, which is relatively new for your organization. could you go little more in depth into what these programs are and are you involved in the research are just finding? how is it going? >> we are involved. it is the navy -- we need to get more involved as we move to the future. i can give you some specifics on the three initiatives. one is a sensor for remotely operated vehicle to detect waterborne i.e.d.'s. as i said, it is a remotely operated vehicle with sensors, command and control software, and a manipulator to invest these for inspections around piers, pilings, sea floor, etc. the second one is and mobile

queing, which helps us map using underwater mapping sonar. there are a number of other initiatives that deal with other waterborne threats, swarm, and other things like that, which i probably should not talk about. i see this as an area where we need to become more engaged and involved with the navy. >> [indiscernible] >> i do not have the exact figures but i could probably get back to you. >> thank you. >> when you met the pakistani interior minister earlier last month, was anything specific that pakistan had asked for in terms of countering i.e.d.'s? as you mentioned, the u.s. is willing to cooperate, so what specific equipment, training, can the u.s. provide pakistan to help them with their international ied strategy?

>> the minister of interior was here for discussions at the state department. i think counter-terrorism and other threats. i think it was just two weeks ago and there was a press release put out by the state department. i have seen others. it was a wide-ranging discussion about what we can do to cooperate in this area. as i met with the pakistani military, we have agreed to develop a framework of cooperation. where can we cooperate? i believe we can contribute with training. we can contribute with some equipment. i know there has been some equipment transferred and there have been some general discussions of requirements in some areas where they could request some assistance. one is forensics and hand-held devices and the like to help better detect these instruments.

so we're in the discussion. we look forward to better specifics on what we can do to help, and also the next step in these discussions. >> thank you. >> roger kirk. of the presence to carry regulations at airports, the dhs has put in, are they adequate to detect current i.e.d.'s and is that an increasing threat that they use different kinds of ways to make i.e.d.'s? >> i cannot comment really on the adequacy of them, but i will tell you for every new invention we have for every new communication system, there is someone else in the world looking on how to use that whether it is wi-fi as a triggering device, how to use broadband effectively, how can we develop nonmetallic and undetectable components to be

able to use in aircraft in times square and other places? so they are actively working to bring this threat to the homeland and we have seen in. times square and other examples, underwear bombers on airplanes. and continuance for product improvement with every step along the way. it is of concern and something we are dealing with and will have to deal with for the future. >> i am the navy fellow here the council. i was wondering if you could comment on the speed with which these actors evolve? >> in afghanistan, we used to be engaged in arms race that took

years to produce a new radar or new icbm. now it is weeks and months and not years. they adapt in several ways if they can tell -- they watch and see if we're successful in detecting in seizing certain things, they'll change the way the process it. they watch as tactically. if they watch where we dismount and our vehicles, then that is where you'll see the i.e.d.'s. they know for a fact if they can engage us with small arms and inflict casualties, we bring in helicopters. where is a likely landing zone? when we make contact with our dismounted troops, the first and we do is look for place to put our machine guns. that is where the i.e.d.'s are. it is as we adjust, the rhythm of combat, we must always stay agile. we must remain more agile than them rid our commanders and

troops on the ground, it is a continuous learning process that we try to bring back to the training base. the first time a trooper sees a piece of equipment or lines how to use it is not in afghanistan when he arrives at his operating base, or at his home station than at a big training event than in afghanistan. so they are watching our tactics and adjusting. there also, as i said, the materials, how they employ them, how to construct these devices is constantly evolving both in afghanistan and globally. it is seamless, how they're sharing these. you can go on into that now and learn how to process the calcium, nitrate, the projectiles as i have said that have migrated, so it is a continuous process. they are learning, adaptive.

>> thank you. steve. >> thank you. my question is, how is industry performing for your mission? in particular, i am interested to know how they're performing with respect to the speed, responsiveness, the expeditionary nature of the mission and if you can go so far as to say lessons learned for industry and how to be effective mission like this, that would interest me. >> early on, it was apparent to me from the back we were a little too opaque with our requirements to industry. we developed an unclassified, here is our gaps in our capabilities. it is on our website. if you bring us this, where the venture capitalists, we're here to invest in it, get it to a

point where it is good enough and get it fielded. so they have been very responsive. i have yet to find an industry partner who says, i'm not interested in helping out with the number one killer of our troops. they're all motivated. some things we will not get out there fast. if it is a nuisance to the committee created over time, you can throw as much money as you want and it is not rapidly fielded. a lot of them, they have been very responsive and very attuned to the requirement to rapidly, as something that is good enough. for example, last year in talking to a group of marines down at camp bastian, there had been -- i said, i heard you need robots, something that can pre detonate these things. they said, we want something like we can throw about 100

meters. less than 5 pounds. it gets blown up, we have another one in our backpack. so we came back, issued a broad area announcement. we got 40 proposals. we narrowed it down to 6. by then we have received the official request. we did some testing in the states to where we thought it was good enough, then we said use these with your dismounts and your ground clearance and tell us which ones you want or tell us how to improve them. i think they will come back and say, we want either two or all three types of this in certain numbers. then we have already set the conditions with these three producers. we're ready to write the check and get them as fast as we can.

that is kind of how we operate. very responsive, very interested and very engaged with us, to answer your question. >> the meeting you had with the squad, when you're able to give them time? >> this is not ideal, but it was shrinking robotics and there was a challenge in getting a day/night camera in there. it was about eight to 10 months before we got them over there. that is not what we strive for. another example, when we looked last year at the injuries that our dismounted troops were taking. we called our british partners and said, what have you got? they came over and laid out the hand-held devices. we were already investing in one of them, and doubled down on that. they also brought over protective undergarments. we said, what is it? we sent a couple across and within a few months, we had fielded 210,000 kits. they have been effective in limiting the damage, the

injuries to our troopers when they do get hit by these i.e.d.'s in the dismounted node. we're looking at how to improve those, make them lighter, more comfortable. that was done in four months. that is the target on how we can do things faster, how to get them before the fighting season. i mean, if we can get them a certain amount of funds, that is great. if it is ended june or july, we have missed the fighting season. we're looking at accelerating capabilities before the next fighting season. >> i recently attended a night class briefing for organization put on. i was real impressed with the way you put out the contract bids for people to come back with a different type of equipment, the size, the range,

etc. also, the way your during the acquisition has to be praised because the reaction needs to be done. if anyone wanted to know more about it, it was unclassified. that was a great briefing. until they got into the nano matter. i just wanted to sing your praises of jieedo and what they're doing. >> it goes back to what i said about unique authorities. i can sign off on it and we can get on with it. we realize last year our first time troopers resting hand-held devices and afghanistan. that was the right thing to do, to get them to theaters as fast

as we can. they're saying, sir, i am a little busy first week here in the country. so for $24 million we said, let's buy 70 sets, put it at their home stations, let them train at their camps and put them at these big training center so they, hopefully, see them twice before they occupy their battle space. anything above $25 million we have a rapid staffing for all of these services to dr. carver, in i think 10 to 18 days. if not, then, we start making phone calls. >> [inaudible] >> industry, the national labs, this is about building a partnership and who else we can partner with and use their unique skills in this fight. that is an area i said we must retain. we cannot go back to focusing on programs of record, five- year plans.

on the other part of the world, there is some guy sitting there not constrained like that. he is as agile as he can be. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have two questions, if i may. if you could clarify, what would be the single biggest contributor to the delay in getting whatever it is to the field? is the geography? is it industry? >> it is not funding or bureaucracy. some of these sensors we are fielding detect a very small component from 10,000 feet to 40,000 feet is just plain hard physics. the sensors either do not exist and it takes time to develop tests and get them to good enough. or it is day one of that takes a very long time to develop. there is one -- i want you what it does, if it was very useful and iraq. we shifted them to afghanistan.

they are our best detection platform for this one type of ied. we just got a request for two more. the first response was, well, it will take x number of months. is it going to cost us more? how much? it is not the bureaucracy or funding. at great funding authorities and responsive staffing within the department of defense for anything above $25 million. every time we have staff one of those initiatives, it has never been denied or held up. some of these are very hard to put together. >> [undiscernible] all of these factors coming together. kind of -- how to adapt jieedo

to make somebody on the hill or elsewhere say, ok, you are funded. >> we get great support on the hill. we're out there all the time. >> we have great support on the hill, and anything more than $2 million -- that is important. our budget last year was $2.4 billion. for next year, we have requested $1.9 billion. we have taken a serious look at our budgeting. the easy thing is to say we need to push for it again. we have different requirements

this year, but certain things are unknown. there is going to be another fighting season. we have two transitions we have to get through, the transition to an advisory role and the transition to nsf. and then what we do not know, how will the nsf develop capabilities? we think our request for next year is appropriate, and anything less, we would be accepting a significant risk to the mission. >> thank you. >> hi. i am from the woodrow wilson center. [indiscernbile] i am the pakistan scholar for this year. three short questions. the first one, you spoke about the fertilizer industry, which

is supplying -- which is where most of the fertilizer produced that ends up in ied's. could you shed more light about that, why there has been little progress on that? you also talked about potassium chlorate, and that is where there was a question of where the incidents had evidence. when you talk about the high numbers on june 2012 ied's, can you give as a profile of the highest number compared to the south and central afghanistan? you also talked about a knowledge transfer. there was an impression that ied's in afghanistan in the theater were followed by the spike of ied's in iraq, that that is a kind of knowledge

transfer. do you agree with that, the parallel development in the afghanistan theater? >> the last part of the question is, has there been a large transfer of knowledge from iraq? >> the first ied's started in afghanistan, and there was a question why we have not seen an increase in ied knowledge and technology and use in afghanistan, and people said it was because of iraq. >> first of all, as far as potassium chlorate and where we see at the number of ied's in the southwest last year -- that is where the marines were moving, and that is the highest number of marines and casualties. rc south and east is where we see the majority of ied's.

as far as transfer of tactics, techniques, and procedures from afghanistan, is afghanistan the testing ground for the world? inre seeing developments different areas. i mentioned the explosively formed projectiles which we have seen in iraq, somalia, and we have seen one incident in afghanistan. we are seeing improvised blasting caps. i cannot draw a line from what we saw and experienced in iraq as far as tactics, techniques, and procedures. iraq was largely military munitions at the outset because that was most readily available, and then the explosively formed projectiles will begin the weapon. in afghanistan it is homemade explosive, improvised pressure plates.

i cannot draw that thread between the two elements in afghanistan and iraq. the materials you picked were too cheap, and they use whatever is most readily available and works best, and that will change. >> the first question was about fertilizer. >> i cannot answer that. it is a common threat. the fertilizer industry has taken this on and they are moving out to take a look at this and take some actions to institute some of these four changes that have been adopted. as far as progress, there has been some activity in pakistan. they have changed the bags and

put different numbers on the bags of fertilizer. we have not seen the effects yet. >> thank you. i am the marine corps fellow here at the council. you mentioned the network and attacking the network, and i understand the network is a lot of things -- equipment, people. it is information, but you also said that might be the center of gravity, the death blow, and to me you also commented on the fact that information sharing on tactics, techniques, procedures is fairly easy. so in order to attack the center of gravity, it has to be a definable thing. can you comment on our ability to attack their use of the internet -- i hesitate to use the word cyber -- but to me

there are a lot of hungry people out there who are willing to go on the offensive on the cyber piece, and this is a logical approach to get inside something of what is happening. >> it is a huge challenge. we do very little in that area. i am probably not the right person to talk to. we need to take it on. that is their c4sr. how do we neutralize that advantage, a strategic advantage we have to take it on in the future. i cannot answer what is being done in that area, though. >> if i could go back to my first comment, which is the issue in the end is not just

technology, because you are doing your best trying to deal with what are the symptoms of an underlying disorder within the societies that we're operating in. there is a missing nexus in my view. once the transition is over, the challenge will be for local governments, particularly in the region we have focused on today in afghanistan and pakistan, to change the underlying conditions. there is also, particularly in pakistan, once the coalition departs, there will not be a reason for this. in not sure the evidence is

on that, and i am wondering whether there has been any debate or discussion, adequate debate and discussion, within the countries concern. feel free to not answer that. i just wonder how those in the group wanted to provide their views. >> i am not sure what the discussions are. attacking the network is the most difficult challenge you have, understanding them and detecting vulnerabilities. it is credible, but it is the most difficult, but i am not sure what those discussions are in most other places. >> the second question. >> general, you did not mention dogs. apparently we are using dogs with the ammonium-based weapons. you need something to detect, that is.

talk about what we are doing with dogs. are there other chemical sensors you are working on since there so little metal involved in these ied's? >> dogs are critical. we have commanders that swear by them. they are very effective. interestingly, the key variable in the performance of dogs is the selection of the handler. if you're not successful in finding a handler, you will not be successful. selection of handler -- and we are involved in keeping the dogs current, and there are

ideas of sensors of these homemade explosives, especially ammonium nitrate weapons. >> another question? >> i have been on this advisory board forever, but is there a nato set of excellence for ied's? how are you interfacing there, and how much progress had you made with act and capacity? >> when i left iraq, my commander asked if i could work with nato, and we work closely with the allied command transfer in norfolk.

they have written and published a nato counter-ied strategy, which is a good strategy. there is a center of excellence in madrid, and we have worked with them in training. and recently in brussels, i met with a nato commander and determined how we can better partner with nato. and then finally the nato intel facility. we have established a presence so we can have direct linkage in exchange of intelligence. as we come out of this 10-year

effort, we cannot let budget pressures affect this. there are three smart defenses that nato has planned to look at specific capabilities. there are three counter-ied capabilities. we have proposed a fourth one, which is moving its way through the system. i am confident that will be adopted. i feel good about where nato is going, and we are tied into them. >> if we have you back here three years from now, what would you like to say at that time about where things are, particularly at the end of the transition? >> two things. first, we were effective in limiting casualties in afghanistan. that is our focus.

i talked about progress earlier. to some kid in bethesda and some family in kansas, that is not progress, so we have to do better. i would like to tell you we have limit casualties greater. and then after we look beyond 2014, we have institutionalized the capabilities to allow us to meet this enduring threat. we will work hard as hell on the first one, and i am confident that we will be able to report success in the second one. >> thank you very much, general. we appreciate you taking this time. if there are no other questions, i want to thank you on behalf of my colleagues. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> of the anime understands a free iraq will be a major defeat -- the enemy understands a free iraq will be a major defeat. they are showing up in iraq to defeat us. if we lose our well, we lose. if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat our enemy. >> i believe in being strong, resolute, and determined, and i

will hunt down and killed the terrorists wherever they are. we also have to be smart. smart means not diverting your attention and taking it off to iraq where the 9/11 commission confirmed there was no connection to 9/11 itself and saddam hussein and the reason weapons ofto war was men' mass destruction. this president has>> you can ses foreign policy debate from the 2004 campaign later tonight along with other debates from our archives. watched the 1984 debates and from 1988. it is all starting at 7:00 p.m.

eastern here on c-span. >> there is a movie theater and i write about. i had gone to visit it and was there from 1947. it has shown films from all over the world. to me, it symbolized the resilience of the country and the openness of the country in pakistan. during one of the protests against a video that insulting the prophet mohammed that had a negative image, people turned against movie theaters and burned them. i dulce that as a protest against the west or the united states.

you had islamist activists who had not liked the movie theaters for decades way before this profit mohammed film. they grabbed an opportunity to attack and they whipped up a bunch of young people who stole so does from the snack bar on the way to burn this big deal theater.e what they were really attacking was the nature of their own country which perhaps they did not understand. who am i to say what your country is about? i know from having listened to pakistanis themselves that it is an incredibly diverse place and was born as a more diverse place than it is today with lots of different cultures, traditions, and ways to be.

that movie theater symbolized pakistan and that is what people burned when they set on fire. and.s. senate candidate former gov. squared off in a debate tuesday night. this debate is courtesy of kitv in honolulu, hawaii. it is about an hour. >> here are the rules for tonight's debate, when the panelist is asked a question she will have one minute to answer. opposed candidate will have 45 seconds for rebuttal. and a little later the candidates will have an opportunity to ask questions of each other. before we get to questions each candidate has 90 seconds to answer this question. why are you running for u.s.

senate and we begin with representative hirono. >> thank you for hosting this debate tonight. and to those of you who are tuning in thank you. you are asking yourself does this u.s. senate race matter to me and my family. that's an important question and i hope you listen for the differences between us. if you're a middle class person, for example, note that my republican opponent's economic priorities are similar to mitt romney's. that's because they both support rich millionaires get tax breaks while middle class taxes go up. or if you're on medicare note my opponent's plan is exactly the same as mitt romney's because they will change medicare into a voucher system and that will end up costing our seniors a lot more money.

or you may be asking yourself why don't we create jobs and get our economy going? note my republican opponent has joined with the national republican party to oppose president obama's jobs plan to create 2 million jobs. or you may be asking yourself a larger question what is the best senate for highway hawaii? a senate tied to a republican agenda opposing president obama or a senate committed to middle class values and the right priorities. >> governor lingle your turn now. why are you running for the united states senate? >> i'm run ling for the same reason i wanted to represent molakai when i was 27 years old. on the counsel making life better for seniors meant fix it is drinking fountain and installing ceiling fans.

as mayor it meant capping taxes so people could afford to stay in their home even when property value skyrocketed. as governor it meant creating a robotics program so twins at a high school would major in engineering. as senator making life better means protecting social security and medicare for future generations. we have to cannot to invest in healthcare, education, national security and infrastructure while working to regain our financial strength as a nation. two years ago i was invited to be a founding member of a governor's counsel at the bipartisan policy center washington where i worked with former republican and democrat governors on issues important to the state and nation. unlike my opponent i have a track record of working in a bipartisan fashion to make life better for the people of hawaii.

i ask for your vote so i can continue my work as hawaii's next united states senator. >> well, now to our panel and we're going to start with andrew who as a question for representative hirono. >> you've been classified as one of the most liberal members of congress. critics say you're a machine for the democrats or a rubber stamp. can you tell us a specific issue where you broke from you're party? >> it's important we work in a bipartisan way to get things done for hawaii. and i've done that. i'm proud of my work i did with my friend don young from alaska where we saved education grant programs. that meant about $33 million for those programs for native hawaiians. i also worked with republican

control congress to bring $6 million more to our airport that is dealt with aviation. that's $6 million every year to hawaii. that's jobs, that's infrastructure. i'm also proud of working with a bipartisan way with my visit u.s. bill. that would infuse our economy with about $600 million. so unlike my republican opponent, i don't just talk about being bipartisan, i do it. >> thank you very much. and governor lingle you have 45 seconds for rebuttal. >> she is been in the republican party so she never had experience at working across party lines. being a republican meant in order to achieve the initiative we worked on to get the clean

energy initiative adopted, i had to work with people of both parties in a respectful manner. my opponent has spent this entire campaign attacking national republicans. these would be the people we would have to work with to get things done for hawaii. she votes with her party 97% of the time. that is not somebody who is bipartisan. she never has been, she never will be. >> governor lingle you're a republican who hawaii people should support. can you name a specific plank with governor mitt romney's campaign you don't agree with. ofwe're on different sides immigration. it's because our state is a state of immigrants as is our nation. unlike most people watching tonight my grandparents weren't born in this country and i feel

that immigration is not just important to us as a nation but important to our economy because our birth rate has dropped, we need more people coming into the country. i also support young people who come here to study being able to stay in america. also governor romney and i disagree on how he relates to china. china is a critically important nation to our state. i've spent a lot of time there and i think attacking them is not the right thing to do for america or the state of hawaii. >> representative hirono. >> the people of hawaii should be very clear that my republican opponent is completely on the same page with mitt romney with regard to opposing president obama's jobs bill which would create 2 million jobs necessary in this economic crisis. and she is totally on the same

page with mitt romney on the issue of changing medicare into a voucher system that would end up costing our seniors more money which and she is also totally on the same page with mitt romney on the question of more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. so that is not somebody who is bipartisan. she will be one of four votes that the republicans nationally need to control the u.s. senate. >> thank you very much. and now to chad blair who has a question for representative hirono. >> you say you would fight and you will fight to keep social security and medicare in tact for future generations and you've suggested fixes like ending the payroll cap. negotiate of these will sufficiently fund these programs long into the future. are you avoiding making tough decisions such as raising the eligibility age for social security? >> here's what i will do to keep social security strong

because both social security and medicare are not just programs to support, but are commitments. social security can be kept strong for 75 years so i disagree with the premise of your question. because by lifting the cap on payments to the social security trust fund, we can keep that fund going inner 75 years and i do not agree on raising the retirement age for social security as my republican opponent supports because that would end up with our recipients getting less in social security. for medicare obama care extends the life of medicare for eight years. i have three proposals, we need to get after fraud and waste. we need to allow for purchasing of drugs and focus on prevention. and my opponent would just totally get rid of obama care.

>> governor lingle. >> congresswoman hirono continues to say my plan for medicare choice is the voucher program even though she knows that's not true. a voucher is something you get in the mail and take it in and redeem it. that's not my idea at all. in fact the plan i proposed was first recommended by president clinton and most recently the bipartisan center also supported choice in medicare. it's one of the bipartisan ideas which will help create competition and help keep cost under control for medicare. we also need medical malpractice reform to bring down cost of insurance for physicians and stop defensive medicine that's driving up the cost of healthcare.

>> governor lingle, senator dan has criticized your statements you can work effectively with him if elected to the senate. are you exaggerating your relationship and how can hawaii residents have confidence in their senate team? >> i've had a good relationship with him as my eight years as governor. i think the best informs 2005 we saved jobs at the pearl harbor shipyard. he was not allowed to lobby to get pearl harbor taken off the list but he did introduce me at the brack hearing. i represented the state of hawaii. people forget we won that vote on a four to five vote. that meant had one vote go the other way we would have lost those jobs. we worked closely on that.

we also worked on a bill to get republican senators as cosponsors that he was not able to get previously. i know heel all the do what's right for hawaii. i look forward to working with him if i win this united states senate race. >> the people of hawaii should be very clear that should linda lingle be elected to the united states senator she will be one vote closer for the republicans to take control of the senate. and that would be the loss of the chairmanship of the appropriate committee. make no mistake about it that is the republicans plan in supporting her. i have a long-standing relationship with the senator. and while my republican keeps talking about a foot in both camps it makes no sense to send two people to the united states senate who will cans each

other's vote. and as for barack i think he has a very different version of what happened there to save those jobs. >> we're going to go back to our panel catherine cruz for a question. >> spending in hawaii is probably going to be reduced next year whether it's to the budget cuts or different approach congress may choose. assuming no deal is struck during the lame duck session and you are elected what areas would you cut? please be specific. >> the budget control act which brought us sequestration was a bipartisan compromise that was supported by senator mccain, by paul ryan and others. and it was a very tough compromise but we did it because otherwise the economy would have gone over the cliff t. loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

so yes, we're going to need to address sequestration. we're going to have to do it in a balanced way. we're not going to balance our budget by cutting cutting cutting which is what the republicans want to do. and i'm shocked to learn my republican opponent said she would not have voted for that act. she would have joined extremists in the house to send the country over the economic cliff. i think that's one of the most irresponsible things i have ever heard from linda lingle. so rather than going in that direction i voted for that bill to save our country literally. >> congresswoman hirono made a mistake when she voted to go along with a massive cut to military spending that was required under sequestration. she should have realized that a cut in our state was so much

more devastating in our state because of the percentage of the economy reliant on the military. this $50 billion cut is going to hit hawaii harder than anywhere else in america which and there are times when you shouldn't compromise bipartisan or not. this was the wrong decision to make. she should have stood up for the people of hawaii. >> thank you. we're going to chad blair. >> it seems clear that the september 11 attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi libya was a planned terrorist attack. how should the u.s. respond to this latest provocation? >> i think it's important in the area of national security to make certain that the country

comes together in these kinds of times. this was a presentable situation likely because there was a request made for additional security there in benghazi. i feel sad for our ambassador and for his family. but america should have recognized and the state department should have recognized this was a very volatile area. national security is an area that hawaii has to be extremely concerned about as well because we are in one of the most volatile parts of the world. i know a lot of attention is focused on the middle east but in fact this is the site of the largest military build upton planet. >> what's happening now with regard to the investigation of what happened in libya is a commitment to make sure that we find out exactly what happened so that this kind of tragedy doesn't happen again. this is an area of the world,

the middle east, where we can't afford to shoot first and ask questions later which is what happened with governor romney. so this is not an issue that should be politic sized. it is being investigated. we are going to get to the bottom of it and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again. but this is an area of the world where intelligence, facts before we speak are important. >> now it's time for the candidates to ask each other a question. each candidate has no more than 30 seconds to ask the question. the candidates will have one minute to answer the question and 45 seconds for the rebuttal. >> governor lingle you get to ask the first question. >> congresswoman hirono you were an advocate for the law that harmed hawaii people. you led the conversion of a leading trust lands and you stood by when the

administration you were a part of stopped payments to hoe. as my first month as governor i restored those payments. how can the hawaii people trust you to represent them when your record shows you have continually abandoned their interest? >> my record is long and strong and the native hawaii community recognizes that. that was passed long before i got to the legislature and that was an important piece of legislation that promoted fairness. having said that i know that governor lingle went to the u.s. supreme court to push the proposition that the state of hawaii should be able to sell seated lands and this is in spite of the fact that the people opposed it. and as for the support for the bill, she knows that she supported it but at a critical

time in 2010 when the bill was going to come to the floor for a vote, she sent a letter to every single u.s. senator urging them not to support it so that never came to a vote, if it had, it would have been passed. president obama would have signed it into law and one of the most critical issues for hawaii people would be law. she didn't help. >> congresswoman hirono mentioned a land reform act but that has nothing to do with the legislature to force the trust to sell their land. also she mentioned seated lands in the case. it was the same position that the governors took because i was representing all the people of hawaii. i never sold an acre of seated land during my time in office. in fact, we transferred state lands to the department of homelands that has allowed all

of the homes to be built. the reason the bill hasn't passed until now because there's been no republican in the senate. they had a democrat and they still couldn't get it passed. they need a republican member of the senate to support this bill. >> my first question to you linda is this, apart from the fact that both you and mitt romney are republicans and therefore are on the same team, i am very interested in knowing why specifically you believe mitt romney would be a better president for hawaii than president obama? ini'm like most people hawaii that we're very proud when a person who is born and raised here at home became president of the united states. it's true that president obama inherited a very difficult

economy and a very difficult situation. and he's tried and i'm sure he's done his best to make things better but it just hasn't worked. we have more people unemployed, more women living in poverty today. we have more people on food stamps. governor romney is a person who has the proper experience at this time to get our economy back on track and i think that's the number one issue facing the country. >> representative, your rebuttal. >> i know that my republican opponent continues to shout that she is bipartisan but how bipartisan was it for her to go out on the campaign trail to support the mccain ticket and she is currently a co-chair in the romney campaign. and like him, she supports eliminating obama care, -- i

have a bit of a cold, i do apologize to the viewers. raising the age for social security, making sure the richest people in our country get their tax breaks. these are issues that are important to the people of hawaii. so she doesn't talk about why she is on the same page with mitt romney on these issues that are of critical importance to the people of the state of hawaii. >> it's time for a short break and when we come back we'll have questions from our viewers. stay tuned and we'll be right back. >> welcome back to the debate. time now for those watching at home online t and their smartphones. >> this has been a very lively

discussion and we're having a hard time picking questions. we're going to start with a question for governor lingle. what is the most dishonest remark that has been said about you by your opponent. towell, there's so many choose from. if i just look at tonight it would be her continuing to talk about my idea of medicare being a voucher program. she does that to try to put fear into our senior citizens. she also put a tv ad up that said my plan for medicare would add a huge amount of money to out of pocket expenses for seniors. so she's trading on fear to try to get the people scared. and i think it's not only mean to me, i think it's cynical and disrespectful when i keep repeating it's not a voucher program.

she also makes mention from time to time that i'm a co-chair of governor romney's campaign when she knows that's not true either. >> my republican opponent has been on the attack since day one of the general election. there has been one after another attack regarding my record, my achievements, you name it. so i really take -- there is such a difference in my approach in this campaign because my ads are comparison ads. and when governor lingle keeps talking about her premium support plan not being a voucher plan, i think that's being dishonest. so she has spent over a million dollars attacking me every single day and these attacks

are not true and they are very misleading. >> this next question is for representative hirono. i i feel it's important to be independent. name one issue you disagree with senator daniel annoy. >> our state is the most oil dependent state in the country. and we need to wean ourselves from support only who supports the republican agenda of drill baby drill and continued reliance on fossil fuels. i do not. the senator supports drilling in some of the most pristine areas of alaska and i do not support . that in fact what our state needs to do is move towards

energy insufficiency and reliance on fossil fuels and i have a sustainability plan that would do just that. >> thank you very much. >> over the two years that the community and my administration spent creating the clean energy initiative. congresswoman hirono and her staff were the only ones in the delegation who didn't participate in that process at all. she says she's against fossil fuel but for our nation to expand our economy and gain energy independence from foreign nations and to keep our military safer, it makes a lot of sense to develop our own energy sources. all of the elected if i recollects in alaska support the drilling of on war. we should respect their wishes. and their gas find would benefit hawaii directly and it would come from a sister state and not from a foreign nation.

>> this next question is for representative hirono. if you have so much confidence in social security solvency would but willing to forego your pension in congress and join social security like the rest of us? >> this is yet another erroneous piece of information that keeps circulating because members of congress pay into social security just like everybody else and our retirement is just like every other federal employee. so these pieces of information keep getting circulated. what i would like to do with social security is a very important safety net for our people is make sure it remains strong by lifting the cap so people who are making $1 $10,000 continue to pay into the trust fund there by keeping that trust fund strong for 75 years.

and unlike my opponent i do not support lifting the retirement age for social security because experts have said that doing that will result in lower social security payments to our retirees. that is not the way to go. those are not our priorities. >> she knows that i don't support raising the age of social security. i said at our last debate that while people are living longer, those poorest in our nation are not living longer so by raising the age we would be penalizing them in particular. i did say we might want to find a split system for those who work in physical labor their whole lives, perhaps they shouldn't work as long as somebody who works in an office. i proposed a great new creative

bipartisan idea called an automatic i.r.a. and i hope i can talk about it tonight. >> we have one more question asking if you are elected governor lingle would you take action to repeal obama care in its entirety or any part there of? >> certainly there are parts of obama care that i think should be repealed. but i'd like to commend for raising one critical issue and that was the issue of preexisting conditions. it's not right in america that a person who has an illness already continue obtain health insurance. but the biggest problem i have with obama care is it takes $716 billion away from medicare. this is money that would have gone to pay providers skilled

nursing facilities, hospitals and it would have taken $300 from medicare advantage. medicare advantage is used by 42% of medicare beneficiaries in our state much less than the 25% who use it nationally. so for that reason alone i think at a minimum obama care has to be amend. we can't shortchange our people from taking so much money away from medicare. >> should the republicans take control of the united states senate one of the first things they would do is repeal obama care. so all of these things about obama care that my republican opponent likes will be gone. not only that if she had been a united states senator when the vote on obama care in the united states senate it would have never passed because it was that close.

so millions of seniors are being helped by obama care, hundreds of thousands of young people being helped by obama care would all be gone. there is no sugar coating this. if she gets elected to the senate and republicans gain control they will repeal obama care with nothing much to replace it. >> thank you to our viewers who are watching. we're going to go back to our candidates who have a couple of questions to ask of each other. 30 seconds to ask the question, one minute to answer and 45 seconds for rebuttal. >> congresswoman hirono you talk about local values. i believe an honest days work for an honest days wages. au've elected more than million dollars but haven't passed one bill to help local families or businesses.

you missed 144 votes this year alone. that is twice that of your typical congressional colleague. how can you look our citizens in the eye and claim your poor attendance reflect the hard work? >> this is another misleading attack. she knows very well that my voting record in the united states house is 95% and i have voted almost 5,000 times. when we talk about not being around. why don't we focus on the fact when my opponent was very busy campaigning for the mccain ticket in 2008 she was gone for almost a month. and there was one two-week period -- this was at a time when our state was facing a huge economic crisis in 2008. there was a two-week period when she was gone taking pot

shots at obama to the point where an editorial said governor you should come home and do your job and she ignored it. i'm proud of my accomplishments in congress and i'll go into those later in this debate. >> congresswoman hirono e try to dismiss your terrible record how many times you did show up. but if an average worker tried to do that they'd get put on probation and if a student missed that many days they'd be held back for missing the material and not turning in their work. >> you've been quoted as referring to george w. bush as our greatest president and you defended the bush administration decision to go to

war in iraq as well as his handling of hurricane katrina. do you still support that? >> it's not a statement i ever made certainly after 9/11 when president bush faced anta tack on our nation, i thought he did a great job of uniting the nation and developing a plan. he believed that iraq had weapons of mass destruction and so did our allies in europe. it was than basis that the united states congress voted for our country to go to your. this is not something a president can do on their own. there were also 30 other nations who were involved in that effort. i think at the time based on the information that we knew,

the president did a good job for the nation. but the quote she mentioned never happened. >> your rebuttal. >> i'm astounded because she admitted it and i see chad blair here. you should fact check this. she continues to be a partisan supporter and a cheerleader for george w. bush, his decision to go to iraq which and i'm proud of the fact that our delegation, two senators all voted against going to war in iraq. they had the same information but they had the foresight and the vision not to send us to war in that very tragic mistake. so when she talks about being bipartisan she has been a cheerleader for bush and for the mccain abdomen now she is a cheerleader for governor romney.

>> we are going back to our questions. touchernor lingle let's on something that made big news. for many years republicans have tried to cut funding for p.b.s. in this years presidential debate he suggested cuts to sesame street and big bird. do you support the move and why or why not? >> i think it's important to look at all expenditures of the nation. but it's clear all of our budget is made up of medicare, social security, medicaid and military spending. we also have to service the debt for the country. we also have a variety of programs such as food stamps, supportive agriculture and

homeland security. foress when you're looking ways to cut, you're looking for things that are not essential to the economic well being of the nation. and i doubt there are many listeners out there tonight who think sesame street is essential to the economic health of america or to the country's national security. so i think it's a reasonable thing for someone to point to but not going to make much of a dent in our debt or annual deficit. >> the two things that really added to our debt and deficit was two unfunded wars iraq and afghanistan. and as you saw governor lingle is a cheerleader for the iraq war. the second thing was the bush tax cuts for the richest people in our country. these two areas added over $2

trillion to our deficit. so i would be interested to know where the governor stands on funding for planned parenthood because that is another program on the hit list for the republicans nationally. i support planned parenthood because they provide healthcare services to millions of women who otherwise would not have that access. >> catherine cruz has a question for representative hirono. >> more and more we are seeing hawaii shouldering the influx of guam because of the influx of free association. what is your plan to offset the strain on public services? >> i think it is incumbent upon our federal government because we are seeing an influx of these compact my grants and i have talked with the president. we have put in bills that would provide additional revenues for us. and this leads me to talk about

immigration reform. we need to have comprehensive immigration reform and i would look at the compact as part of that whole discussion. we need immigration reform. i support the dream act that would enable young people who came here undocumented who face the prospect of being shipped back to countries they don't even know. this is why i support what the president did with his executive decision to not deport these young people. and this is something that i know mitt romney does not support. >> congresswoman hirono is confused about immigration. the compact free association is an agreement the american government made because of atomic testing we've done there and denuted their land so they're able to travel visa

free anywhere in america nit. they come disproportionately to our state. it cost our state $110 million and the federal government only reimbursed us $11 million for the services we provide. i asked for additional help. where congressman hum did respond to me to deal with a large number of people coming from the compact countries. >> governor, what role should the federal government play in education. are programs like no child left behind and race to the top working? why or why not? >> i think the federal government does have a role to play in a very specific way.

i think that the federal government should set a standard for america as to what each child should know when they graduate from high school, what they should know about american history, their math skills. i can see a national standard as other nations set a national standard. but remember no one in the department of education teaches one child from washington d.c. that is done on a local level. i'd like local control. i think there are some programs that do work. i was a volunteer reading tutor for ten years in the chapter one reading program. this title one reading was for students who came from low income families who needed extra help. so i would tutor them one on one and that money came from the federal government. so some of the programs work well but i would like control to be on the local level. >> do you think those programs are working, why or why not? >> i think it remains to be seen if race to the top works here in

hawaii. it was my office that secured the $75 million we got. mark from my office it was lie son with the department of education and it was the stem, the robotics program that is the feds liked a lot. it does have the potential to work but it remains to be seen. >> as an immigrant to this country, i certainly understand the importance of education as a great equal lieser because otherwise i wouldn't be standing here today. so i have a commitment to make our public schools as good as they can be to enable our kids to succeed in school and life. i have this commitment to our public schools and i know my opponent has said so but who can forget during her watch he had furlough fridays.

furlough fridays our kids are shortchanged 17 instructional days. that is not what a person who supports education would do. and who can forget all these parents who were concerned about furlough fridays wanting to meet with her being escorted out of her office. >> your support or problems with no child left behind and race to the top? >> there certainly is a federal role inner education. the republican ryan budget cuts education support by some 30%. that would leave even more of a burden on the states to close the achievement gap which is what the race to the top was all about. so there is a federal collaborative role with education. this is not about the government top down telling the states what to do. >> we're going to go to andrew

with a question. >> let's go back about a decade. in the 2002 election you were running for governor but you lost to linda lingle and she became the first republican governor in 25 years. why do you think you can defeat her in this race? >> times have changed in ten years. and we now have my republican opponent with a record and she has a mixed record. who can forget furlough fridays has a mixed record. who can forget furlough fridays on her watch or the super fairy fy as co-or the fact that 2,000 jobs were lost while she sat on her hands and by the time she left office hawaii was 48th in the nation in terms of welcoming businesses. this was after she first ran she said hawaii is open for business. this is a mixed record. now i am very proud of the fact that i supported obama care that is helping millions of people all across our country, seniors

and young people. and i also fought to make sure hawaii's prepaid healthcare law, my amendment was included in obama care in the house. i'm also proud of the fact that i brought in $6 million for our airport working with a republican controlled house to do that. >> thank you. >> congresswoman hirono mentioned furlough fridays a couple of times and as she knows no governor can furlough an plofmente hirono's campaign leaves this fact out and it debunks everything she just said about fridays. it's simply not true. however when he was governor she walked the picket line encouraging teachers when there was a 14 day strike and our students lost those 14 days. governor kit no said it was as appropriate as a quarterback

cheering for the opposing team. that was her input into education in our state. the airlines at the time it was struggling wrote me a letter to thank me in getting the government to take over the pension system and to save the pensions of the 3,000 employees. >> we have catherine cruz who has a question for governor lingle. >> u.s. army recently studied the possibility of cleaning up ordnance dumped in hawaii waters. do you support a large scale clean up and if so, at what cost? >> i do support a large scale clean up and through the use of robotics i think it's less expensive to locate the ordnance and pull it to the surface and destroy it. our oceans are critically important to our fisherman and life style and visitor industry. so while it may seem like a large expense, it's something

worth it to us over the long term. it affects our way of life and our economy. so i think that technology can go a long way today and make this something that is doable soiled support an island wide clean up. >> we should make sure that when we clean up that by doing that we're not going to release harmful particles into our waters. so this is a very important kind of endeavor and i would look for federal funds to help the state do that as appropriate. and in fact kneel and i sought funds for ordnance clean up and we got those funds when we were in the house of representatives. at the same time making sure that our waters are safe is noah and i must say that republicans in the house would cut noah funding tremendously and these are the people who worn us when there is a hurricane or some other weather condition that's coming our way.

>> we're going to chad blair. >> repetitive wise delegation is long pushed for fulfilling the u.s. government's promise for benefits for veterans who fought during world war ii. how would you help in washington these aging soldiers and their families who deserve compensation? >> we actually passed a bill that did provide some compensation finally long overdue for the veterans and i was a co-sponsors of that kind of legislation. i am the sponsor of a bill that would reunite world war ii veterans with their children. this is part of a comprehensive immigration reform that i talked about.

i talk with veterans often and they know the work that i am doing in support of benefits for them. in addition, we talk about -- they also care about things like the dream act which the republicans do not support. and veterans who are immigrants, they are reaching out to fellow immigrants and saying we need to hold hands and work very hard to do comprehensive immigration reform and pass the dream act. >> thank you. governor lingle.

>> the issue of promises that were made to the philippine know veterans after the war is not just a issue this is a moral issue for our nation. when we make a promise to somebody and say if you stand by us and are willing to die for us this is what you'll receive after the war. and we haven't kept that promise. this has gone on much too long. if i get to washington d.c. i want to be known on this issue. i want my fellow senators to know what i'm coming to talk about. it's going to be this very important issue for our veteran. it's gone on too long. i think i could bring a renewed energy to this issue if i can get re-elected. >> andrew has a question for governor lingle.

>> there has been a lot of talk in the president campaign about whether it's appropriate to tax the rich. taxing the rich at a higher rate. what level do you consider a person to be rich and what percentage should go to the government? >> this is a terrific question. they currently pay 60% of all income taxes in the country from the top 2%. i think they should continue to pay at that level. but i do think it's important to also point out that our tax code is extremely unfair. it's just riddled with loopholes and special deals. and the position i'm taking on taxes is the one that was put forward by the president's bipartisan commission known as simpson boles and what they recommend is to take out every special deal under the tax code and then force the united states congress one by one to vote on those they want to put back so the public can see who is getting the tax break and in what amount. it also reduces the number of tax bracts and i think that's a

good idea as well. >> what do you consider rich and what percentage should go to the government? >> for our state it's difficult because we're a state of small businesses because if you pick a number, and everybody would pick a different number to classify the rich. but in our state that will mean it's a small business because they report that income as personal income. so we need to find a way if we want to increase taxes on those who have personal income and those running a business. otherwise the businesses in our state get hurt under congresswoman hirono's plan. >> i believe in tax fairness. and sit fair that the richest people in our country pay at a lower tax rate than secretaries as was pointed out we warren buffet. the majority of people in our country make under $250,000 dollar.

this 2% got the benefits of the bush tax cuts. that is not fair. this is why i'm a strong spore supporter of the allowing those tax cuts for the 2% to go away. very different position than my opponent. in fact, i supported the president's bill that would ensure that 97% of small businesses would not see their taxes increase. the republicans in the house voted that down. >> this concludes our questions for this evening. now each candidate will have one minute 30 seconds for closing statements. >> i want to thank you for tonight and for all of you watching. thank you very much. i started this evening by saying does this senate race matter to you and your families?

that's an important question. because when you sit everything else aside, that is the most important question. so in the last hour i hope that you've heard enough to make up your minds about who you would support. at home in your own private lives you set priorities. budget for your family, college for your kids, retirement for yourself, maybe a better job tomorrow. but when you think about your priorities and your dreams, your vote matters. are you going to vote for a senator that is tied to the republicans' agenda or a senator who shares your priorities right here at home? someone who will work closely with president obama and senator oh to get things done for hawaii. i will be that kind of senator.

i will lead with my head and my heart because my heart, my proirpts -- priorities are always with you and my voice will always be your voice. i ask for your votes. >> governor lingle. >> thank you for taking the time to watch this debate. the person we send to be our senator is a leader not a follower. my opponent has been built on the record of others. our next senator should be someone with a proven record of getting big things done. i established the hawaii clean energy initiative. built quality homes for native hawaii an people. my opponent can't point to one thing she's done that has had a lasting impact

on high. the person we send to washington have to get along with all kinds of people. my opponent has spent her campaign attacking national republicans. even i do not agree with them on various issues. there are people we would have to work with to get something done. it is too risky to send my point to the senate. she is not a strong leader, has no history to get things done and does not work well with others. i know you have not agreed with me on everything during my 30 years of public service. you know me and you know my record. i ask you for your continued trust in your vote. i will continue to get things done in washington for the people of high. >> thank you both for participating in tonight's debate. we'd like to thank our panelists. also kitv reporters. we would like to thank our

viewers for logging on. the general election is exactly three weeks from tonight. stay tuned for commitment 2012. our coverage on election day begins at 2:00 p.m. with diane sawyer. we will began coverage of our local races at 6:00 that night. on behalf of kitv news, thank you, aloha and good night. >> i have answered this question many, many times. it starts with the fact that from the day i was born until the day my mother died, she told me about who i am, who we are, and my family is. i have never used the information about our native american heritage to get any advantage, not to apply to college, not to apply to high school, and not to get hired for any job. >> part of this race is also

integrity, character, and trustworthiness. there is a test you take and i believe she has failed that test. no one is questioning what her parents told her when she was younger or all the way through that timeframe. when she was asked by the boston herald why is harvard counting her as a minority, a woman of color, she said she did not know. after five weeks of misleading the papers and the reporters, she says i self reported. she never answered why she did that. >> all this month and leading up to election day, followed the senate, house, and governor's races. >> the enemy understands a free iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. that is why they are fighting so was this seriously. the best so vociferously. they are trying to defeat us.

if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this in. >> 92nd response. >> i believe in being strong and resolute and determined. i will hunt down and killed the terrorists wherever they are. we also have to be smart, jim. smart means not diverting our attention from the real war on terror in afghanistan against osama bin laden and taking it off to iraq where the 9/11 commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself in some hussain and the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction not the removal of saddam hussein. this president has made a colossal error of judgment. judgment is what we look for in the president of the united states of america. >> you can see more from this foreign-policy debate from the

stock -- 2004 campaign in our archives. what the 1984 debate between ronald reagan and former vice president walter mondale and between george bush and michael dukakis. it starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> next, a debate between the candidates for senate in new york. incumbent senate democrats kirsten gillibrand and republican when the long period -- wendy long. >> good evening. welcome from skidmore college. >> tonight the u.s. senate debate is being filmed across the state on ny1 news, as well as across the country on c-span. let us introduce the two candidates this evening in order of when they are speaking, which was determined today by a

coin toss. >> please welcome senator kirsten gillibrand. [cheers and applause] and please welcome attorney wendy long. [cheers and applause] we are going to begin now with one minute opening statements. we begin with senator gillibrand. >> this election is about who we fight for. i am fighting for the middle class, our military, and our seniors.

i am fighting so that every child in new york has an opportunity for their god-given potential. i know that government does not create jobs. people do. we have unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit in businesses. we can see america made again right here in new york. we have to clean up washington. members of congress need to focus on accountability. we can bring people together to get it done. at the senate, that is what i have done. >> thank you. we will turn to ms. long. >> thank you to skidmore

college and you for moderating this debate. i believe in a constitution that unites us all as a people. i was fortunate to get an outstanding public school education and serve as a top staffer to two state u.s. senators and a law clerk at the u.s. supreme court. i am a wife and a mother of two school-age children. i have been through many tough times in my family, and many good times, too.

i understand what is going on around the kitchen tables around new york. we are broke. we are overtaxed, overregulated, and we have lost jobs. >> thank you for both of those statements. we will begin with the next question. answers will be limited to 60 seconds. rebuttals will be 45 seconds. re-rebuttals will be 30 seconds. the first question goes to senator gillibrand. the state department has been criticized for its handling of the situation in libya. we know there were multiple requests for security and it went unheeded. what could have been done to avoid this attack? what should be done going forward? >> the secretary of state, hillary clinton, has done an extraordinary job around the world representing our values. president obama has taken responsibility for what happened in libya. my heart goes out to families of those who were killed in that terror attack. as president obama explained,

we will make sure that we get to the bottom of what happened in libya. we will make sure that that terrorist attackers will be held accountable. he will conduct a full-scale investigation with secretary clinton to find where the failings and shortcomings were. as he has shown time and time again, he does not give up and he does not forget. he holds those responsible who must be held responsible. i have no doubt he will do the same in this case. >> we heard president obama say something that was clearly incorrect. he was saying for days and secretary clinton was saying for days that this whole thing in libya was spurred by this amateur video. they did not say this was a concerted terrorist attack.

ambassador rice went out time after time saying this, and i agree that it is time for ambassador rice to resign. would you agree that after she went out with this false story that she should resign? >> absolutely not. we know that there has been extraordinary turmoil in the arab spring. we lost lives. president obama has been committed to trying to strengthen democracy in the middle east. >> i know, but i am talking about this specific instance. we know this was a specific act of terror. he was tried to blame it on an amateur video. we know that is not the case. we have got to get to the bottom of this case and figure out who knew what and when. >> we will get to the bottom of this. we will hold those accountable for the attack. this is the kind of issue that should not be politicized. it is the kind of issue where we come together and get to the

bottom of it. >> i'm sorry, but we want to move on from this topic. >> the next question is for ms. long. you have criticized the stimulus, which is the centerpiece of the obama's recovery plan. do you think that government spending can never bring the economy out of the recession? >> i think that people create jobs and that government does not create jobs. most of the stimulus was completely wasted. it was filled with hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate cronyism that went to companies like solyndra.

all of that money came from somewhere. it came out of the pockets of taxpayers or it increased our debt to china. that is where the money came from. as president obama said, there were not as many shovel ready jobs as he thought. >> pay down the debt and the deficits and create a growing economy. that is what we are focused on. we are focused on small business. that means cutting their taxes and streamlining taxes. make sure the have the loans that they need. we want to see made in america. rebuilding our infrastructure. build towns, roads, and water

systems across our state. we need to refocus on building new roads and projects. i can tell you, we have tough choices to make. we can tighten our belt. we can cut spending. we have to do it precisely and carefully. we cannot have a "slash only" approach. >> can you suggest something that you would cut? she talks about cutting taxes and getting small businesses of the loans they need, but she has not done any of these things. what we need to get small business is going is to get the private sector to give them loans. her idea of getting a loan is taking money from taxpayers and giving it out to her favorite group. the right way to make a loan is to go to a bank can go through a legitimate project. she has undermined the ability of banks to do that with the

dodd-frank bill. >> we will move onto that. let me move on to another question. this is for senator gillibrand. the arrest of a new york citizen for allegedly trying to bomb a federal reserve calls for robust national defense and national security. we are weeks away from the fiscal cliff that would cut $55 billion a year from defense spending. what steps are you prepared to take to prevent that from happening if you think that is something to be avoided? >> there was a terror attack this morning in new york at the federal reserve. i have deep gratitude for the fbi and our police force. once again, the have thwarted another terrorist attack.

the reason why i disagree with my opponent's approach. i work hard with peter king and across party lines to make sure that a dirty bomb cannot attack. we want to make sure that our religious institutions -- >> let her finish. you will have a chance to rebut. >> we look for fat and waste in the program. that is why i did not vote for this budget deal. i believe sequestration will be bad for new york. it will cut the things we need most -- firefighters, police force, education. >> sequestration would be terrible, senator, but what have you done to avoid sequestration? you have to decide which cuts

to make. as far as i can see, you have not done anything to advance the ball in that. if i were representing new york, i would know what is going on. it would not catch me off of guard. in terms of the attack on the federal reserve, it will be important to make sure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. we do not want nuclear weapons in the hands of any of the terrorists. that will increase what we already know are not only threats of terrorism, but right here on american soil. >> the pledge you have taken,

the tax pledge to never increase taxes, doesn't that lead to the kind of budget showdown that has brought us to the edge of the fiscal cliff? >> no. i agree with ronald reagan. we cannot increase taxes. the tax foundation showed new york is dead last in the tax climate. it is not the answer. the more we increase taxes, the more spending that follows. we need to cut. that is the only way to go about it. the tax system we have now is counterproductive. it is confusing. it takes forever. we need tax reform. we definitely do not want to increahe